Agenda item

To approve the Council’s comments on the Stroud District Local Plan – Further Post Submission Proposed Changes.

That the comments set out at Section two (Paragraphs 2.1-2.6 inclusive) of the report be APPROVED for submission to the public consultation on the Stroud District Local Plan.  

32.1           The report of the Development Group Manager, circulated at Pages No. 35-40, asked Members to approve the comments set out at Paragraph 2 of the report as the Council’s submission to the public consultation on the Stroud District Local Plan.

32.2           Members were advised that the Stroud District Local Plan had been prepared to cover the period to 2031. Tewkesbury Borough had previously made comments in respect of the Plan at the ‘alternative strategies’, ‘preferred strategies’, ‘consultation on polices’ and ‘pre-submission’ stages and had also sought greater clarity on the emerging proposals. At the last stage, Tewkesbury Borough had supported the overall distribution strategy which Stroud had set out and the principle of extending the Gloucester urban area; however, concerns had been raised that the duty to cooperate had not been discharged with respect to cross boundary development, in particular helping to meet the unmet needs of Gloucester City. The Inspector conducting the Examination into the Stroud District Local Plan had considered that the Council had discharged its legal requirements in relation to the duty to cooperate and it was not for this report to reopen that debate.

32.3           In terms of the current consultation, the Stroud District Core Strategy was now at an advanced stage of its preparation and the main changes to the Plan at this stage included: increasing the housing requirement from 9,500 to 11,400 dwellings; increasing the Hunts Grove extension site at Hardwicke from 500 to 750 dwellings; increasing the employment requirement from 38 to 58 hectares; introducing a new affordable housing policy which reflected amended Government policy; making detailed changes to policy wording as a result of the examination process; and proposing an early review of the Plan within five years of adoption or by December 2019, whichever was sooner. The increases in the requirement for both housing and employment land were noted and the pressure for development within Stroud District Council was recognised. Members were advised that the increase in housing numbers had come from the Inspector stating that Stroud District Council’s housing numbers should be more aligned to the Joint Core Strategy and Stroud had subsequently employed Neil MacDonald to work on this. It was felt this was a good sign for the Joint Core Strategy’s housing numbers.

32.4           The suggested response to the consultation was set out at Paragraphs 2.1-2.6 of the report and the closing date for the consultation was Wednesday 9 September 2015. Members were advised that the comments as set out accorded with the Memorandum of Understanding that the Joint Core Strategy Authorities had with Stroud District Council.

32.5           In respect of the housing numbers, a Member questioned whether the uprating of the requirement was purely based on an assessment of Stroud’s own housing need. In response, he was advised that this was based on the needs of the Planning Authority area which was just Stroud District. In terms of the duty to cooperate, Members were advised that this had been debated early in the Examination and, whilst Tewkesbury Borough and Cheltenham Borough Councils had raised concerns to the Examination, the Inspector had indicated that it was a duty to cooperate and not to agree so on that basis they had been satisfied that the test had been met. In terms of the change in housing numbers from 9,500 to 11,400, Officers were of the view that Stroud would consider this fairly significant; however, it was felt that they would satisfy the Inspector when the Examination reopened. A Member asked whether it would be possible to put together a ‘league table’ of where different authorities were with their Core Strategies as this may help the Borough Council understand where the Joint Core Strategy lay. In response, he was advised that different Plan areas had very different challenges therefore a ‘league table’ would not really be helpful in understanding where the Joint Core Strategy was in comparison to others; particularly given the fairly unique and complex nature of the Joint Core Strategy.

32.6           Having considered the information provided, it was