To consider
a report by the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Planning Policy Unit Manager
Minutes:
A report presented by the
Manager (Policy) explained the process and progress on the Joint Local
Development Plan:-
It was explained that the revised timetable had been submitted to the Panel and
advertised via Newsletter - Issue 5. So far, step 9) of the schedule has almost
been reached.
An explanation was given of the process and details of the public consultation
on the Deposit Plan as well as the description of the comments received.
An explanation was given about the LDP Regulations and the relevant guidelines.
Committee's attention was drawn to the requirements in considering the
comments, including the kinds of changes, namely 'Minor Changes' and ‘Focussed
Changes’ that could possibly be included if changes were needed.
Reference was made to the report which was presented to Members in June 2015 by
Mr Iwan Evans (Planning Consultant) (Appendix D) to help them understand what
kind of changes would be appropriate.
It was explained that the purpose of the examination would be to ensure that
the Plan is 'sound' - and when working through the examination process, the
Inspector would look at the Tests of Soundness, which are included in Appendix
CH.
A summary was given of
the main issues raised in the comments received, together with an overview of
the responses:-
Ø Scale of housing growth including in relation to the
Welsh language
Ø Housing strategy to ensure growth in relation to the
Welsh language
Ø Spatial strategy, including the status of settlements
Ø Affordable housing
Ø Local housing market
Ø Accommodation needs of gypsies and travellers
Ø Economy and employment including the provision of land
Ø Renewable energy including wind turbines
Ø Protection of natural environment
Ø Site-specific allocations
It was explained that Appendix A of the report provides a summary of each
individual comment and response to individual comments.
Attention was drawn to the additional papers that were circulated on 26 January
2016 and to the Joint LDP Panel on 29 January 2016 which (i) referred to the
necessary amendments to Annex B and (ii) recorded comments that were not
included in Appendix A.
Having carefully considered the issues raised in the consultation process,
including discussions and feedback on the Joint LDP Panel, it can be seen that
the report concludes that no compelling and robust evidence or reasons were
presented to propose fundamental changes to the Deposit Plan.
It was considered that parts of the Deposit Plan would benefit from minor
changes and focussed changes, and those were set out in Annex B and Annex C to
the report.
It was reported that there is no need for the Councils to consult on the
Focussed Changes but it was recommended that they did so because it would
demonstrate best practice, and would provide an opportunity to gather public
opinion on the changes for the Examination.
It was explained that the Focussed Changes did not have an adverse impact on
the statutory assessment of SA (including SEA), the Welsh Language Impact
Assessment, or the Habitats Regulations Assessment.
Before moving on to
consider individual comments, an overview of the Examination process was given:
When the Plan is submitted to the Welsh Government, this would act as a trigger
to contact the Planning Inspectorate, who
would
appoint an Inspector. Unless it was necessary to call an Exploratory Meeting, a
Pre Hearing Meeting would be arranged so that the Inspector could explain the
process and present the 'Programme Officer'. It was explained that the
Programme Officer has been appointed and would administer the Examination on
behalf of the Inspector. She would be the point of contact between the
Inspector and the Councils, and between the Inspector and objectors. It was
explained that 'Public Hearings' about themes would be organised during the
Examination process. Objectors can express their wish for a 'public hearing'
about their objections or they can rely on their written objections.
The documents to be
submitted to the Welsh Government and the Planning Inspectorate were listed in
accordance with the LDP.
During the ensuing discussion,
the following main issues were raised:
It was understood that the timetable will be submitted to both Councils
separately.
Asked whether the Inspector was a Welsh speaker - this would be an important
factor in order to understand the language situation.
Need an explanation why the report is not considered by both Councils before
being submitted to the Welsh Government.
Clarification was sought on 'Comment 815', which raised concerns about the
housing growth figure.
Reference was made to concerns about the over-provision of housing and its
impact on the Welsh language.
Wylfa Workers Accommodation, - what will happen to these when the construction
is complete?
Noted that a large number of houses have been directed to the largest centres.
Need opportunities to keep the population in rural areas.
Asked whether the Plan recognises the National Grid project. Concerns were
expressed about the impact power lines have on the Anglesey Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty and therefore need to consider laying cables underground, which
is Anglesey Council's position on the matter.
Concerns about water infrastructure - Welsh Water are not addressing the
problem during a period of austerity.
Asked who had undertaken the Special Landscape Areas Study and why an
independent consultant hadn’t been appointed to undertake the Welsh Language
Impact Assessment.
Asked about the
methodology used to assess the special landscape areas.
In response to members'
comments, the officers noted:
It was confirmed that
a decision on the timetable was a matter for the two Councils separately in
accordance with the agreement between the two Councils.
It is understood that
the Planning Inspectorate intends to appoint two Inspectors and that they are
Welsh speakers.
It was also explained
that the role of the Joint Planning Policy Committee is to make a decision on
the individual comments. When the Inspector's report is published it would be
submitted to the two Councils separately for adoption. It was explained that
the procedure has been agreed by the two Councils.
Re comment 815 – it
was explained that the housing growth figure is based on diverse evidence that
includes population and household forecasts (base 2011), housing construction
trends, economic outlook and evidence on factors that influence the local
housing market and the demand/need for new homes. After considering all the
evidence that had been gathered and comparing it to evidence submitted by the
objector, there was no justification for amending the level of growth. The
Committee was reminded of the soundness tests and the need for every aspect of
the Plan to be based on evidence to ensure its soundness. It was noted that the
Committee when approving the Deposit Plan to go out for public consultation in
the first place had done so on the grounds that it is a sound Plan. It was
emphasised that no compelling evidence was submitted in response to the public
consultation which would undermine the evidence the Councils have to support
the plan - and therefore there was no justification for changing the level of
housing growth. It was further stated that seeking to change the level of
growth at this stage, without compelling evidence, would be a significant risk
to the Plan as it was likely it would not meet the soundness tests. This could
mean putting the Planning Inspector in a situation where a recommendation would
have to be made not to proceed with the examination. It was explained that a
significant change that did not fit with the evidence would mean putting
forward a different Plan to the Deposit Plan and would undoubtedly mean
revisiting a lot of areas, including the Sustainability Assessment. That would
mean a significant slippage in the timetable for the adoption of the Plan.
Furthermore, reference
was made to the monitoring framework set out in Chapter 8 that would record and
analyse information on the level and distribution of housing. Also the Plan
will be reviewed in the fourth year.
Following from the above, it was explained that the Plan would not promote a
proliferation of housing because due consideration had been given to the local
demand for new homes.
Re. accommodation for
workers to build Wylfa Newydd, it was explained that the needs will be met
through a number of different methods. The Plan recognises this and seeks to
ensure that the greatest benefit will come through a long-term legacy where
this is appropriate. For some developments such as 'Land and Lakes', the
legacy, i.e. homes for the local communities, will not be seen until after the
Plan period. Therefore they do not form part of the supply to meet the demand
for housing during the Plan period.
It was explained that
the Plan area is considered a rural area and the spatial strategy of the Plan
reflects this. It was emphasised that 45% of the housing figure will be
directed to Local Centres, Villages and Clusters.
It was explained that
Policy PS8, which is a criteria based policy, covers large infrastructure
projects such as the National Grid Project. Other detailed policies would also
apply.
The concerns about
water infrastructure were noted - this is a matter for discussion at the
planning application stage. There was no evidence that this would prevent
developments from coming forward.
It was noted that an
external consultant had been commissioned to undertake the assessment of
special landscape areas, namely the LUC company. Consultants were appointed to
supplement the capacity of the Unit. There was no need for an external
consultant to carry out the language impact assessment.
Re. Special Landscape
Areas (SLAs), it was explained that the LUC company had carried out the study.
It was explained that a background paper had been prepared which reviewed
existing land to see if it was worthy to be called SLA. The scientific evidence
supported the designations found in the LDP. It was noted that there was no
scientific evidence to support the designation in the Local Plan and that the
UDP (Stopped) did not identify SLAs.
An amendment was put forward to
appoint an external expert to make a language assessment of the Plan.
In response to this proposal,
the officers noted:
It was confirmed that the
language assessment carried out was consistent with the recognised methodology.
The assessment also informed the relevant part of the Sustainability
Assessment. It was noted that careful consideration had been given to the
objections about the level of housing growth and distribution and the Welsh
language. That work led to a recommendation to make some focussed changes to
parts of the Plan. It was emphasised that revisiting the language impact
assessment work at this stage would mean having to defer making a decision on
the report that was before the Committee. In response to a query whether
councils could re-visit the language assessment alongside submitting the Plan
for examination, it was confirmed that it was not possible to do so. The
submitted Plan must be based on published evidence. Reference was made to the
risks of not doing so, and the risks associated with delays in the process at
this stage. Objectors would have the opportunity to participate in a discussion
about the issues raised in their evidence documents during public hearings at
the Examination.
The amendment was not seconded.
An amendment was put forward to
designate the Lairds site, near Llanfaes for mixed use.
In response to this proposal,
the officers noted:
It was noted that the proposal
relates to a site that is the subject of an objection made because the site is
not designated in the Deposit Plan. The report about the objection came to the
conclusion that not enough robust evidence was received during the public
consultation to identify the site for mixed use, including housing. It was
stated that, in principle, if relevant evidence were provided, the Plan could
facilitate some of the individual uses referred to in the evidence of the objector
at the planning application stage. Favourable consideration would not be given
to the scale referred to. It was emphasised that agreeing to change the Plan in
accordance with the objection was not consistent with evidence about the demand
or supply of land for housing, and thus it would mean a fundamental change that
would go to the heart of the Plan, undermining its soundness. That would be a
significant risk to the process to take the Plan forward to Examination. The
objector would have the opportunity to participate in a discussion about the
issues raised in his evidence documents during the public hearings at the
Examination.
The amendment was not seconded.
It was resolved:
1.
To support the revised timetable for adoption by the two Councils.
2. To approve the
recommended responses to the comments (Appendix A) and the additional paper
circulated to the Joint LDP Panel on 29 January 2016.
3.
To approve the Proposed Focussed Changes to the Deposit Plan (Annex B), subject
to the additional Paper circulated on 26 January 2016.
4.
To approve the Minor changes to the Deposit Plan (Appendix C).
5.
To submit the Plan and schedule of Focussed Changes to the Welsh Government for
examination.
6.
To publish the Focussed Changes for public consultation.
7. To give delegated powers
to senior officers and/or the Cabinet Member (Planning and Regulation - GC),
Executive Member (Planning and Public Protection - IACC), to agree on possible
changes to the Deposit Plan as part of independent Examination process in
accordance with Welsh Government guidance.
Supporting documents: