Agenda item

To receive any questions submitted under Rule of Procedure 13. Any items received will be circulated on 5 December 2017.

(Any questions must be submitted in writing to Democratic Services by, not later than, 10.00am on the working day immediately preceding the date of the meeting).

56.1           The following question had been received from Councillor Sue Hillier-Richardson to the Lead Member for Built Environment.  The answer was given by the Lead Member for Built Environment, Councillor Elaine MacTiernan, but was taken as read without discussion:

Question:

If this version of the Joint Core Strategy is adopted today (and by all three Councils) and then goes forward, will this Council then be able to refuse speculative applications for development of over 200 homes in parts of our Borough that are not designated for development in the Joint Core Strategy?

Answer:

The adoption of the Joint Core Strategy would mean that its policies had full weight in judging planning applications and gave this Council greater control over the location of new housing.

Importantly, Policy SP1 of the Joint Core Strategy confirmed the housing need for Tewkesbury which provided certainty over what its five year housing land supply target was and reinforced the current position that it had a five year supply on that basis. With a five year supply in place this meant there was no automatic presumption in favour of sustainable development (as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework) and the planning policies were not judged to be out of date.

All applications for development would be judged against the policies in the plan. In particular, proposals for residential development would be considered against Policies SP2 – Spatial Strategy and SD10 – Residential Development. Those two policies provided the core principles for determining where housing may be appropriate in the Borough. SD10 stated that housing development, outside of site allocations (in the Joint Core Strategy, Borough Plan or Neighbourhood Plans), would only be permitted on previously developed land in the existing built up areas of Tewkesbury Town, Rural Service Centres and Service Villages. On other sites, housing would only be permitted where it was an affordable rural exception site, infilling within existing built up areas, or brought forward through Community Right to Build Orders or Neighbourhood Development Plans.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 required that applications must be determined in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicated otherwise. A speculative application for 200+ dwellings, outside of an allocated site and not on previously developed land, would therefore be contrary to Policy SD10 and the principle would be in favour of refusal. However, as with any application, it would also be important to consider all other policies of the National Planning Policy Framework, Joint Core Strategy, Local Plan and any other material planning considerations, in determining whether a proposal would otherwise constitute sustainable development.

56.2           The Mayor invited a supplementary question and, in response, the Member asked the following:

                  In view of the response, and bearing in mind the housing already being developed in areas such as Bishop’s Cleeve and the government’s intention that no New Homes Bonus would be paid on developments which were permitted on appeal, what confidence could Members have that these would be the only large scale sites in the period?

56.3           In response, the Planning Policy Manager explained that sites which were not allocated through the Joint Core Strategy, the Borough Plan or Neighbourhood Development Plans would have to refer to the policies of those plans, such as SD10 in the Joint Core Strategy, which provided principles on where development would go. If development was outside of the allocated sites they would be contrary to policy and would then have to be viewed against the National Planning Policy Framework and other relevant circumstances on a case-by-case basis to see if a move away from the policy position would be justified.