This is a default template, your custom branding appears to be missing.
The custom branding should be at https://tewkesbury.gov.uk/minutes/ if you cannot load this page please contact your IT.

Technical Error: Error: The remote server returned an error: (429) Too Many Requests.

Agenda item

Agenda item

Churchdown and Innsworth Neighbourhood Development Plan

To consider making the Churchdown and Innsworth Neighbourhood Development Plan part of the Development Plan for Tewkesbury Borough; and todelegate to the Head of Development Services, in agreement with the Parish Council acting as the Qualifying Body, the correction of any minor errors such as spelling, grammar, typographical or formatting errors that do not affect the substantive content of the plan. 

Minutes:

7.1            The report of the Planning Policy Manager, circulated at Pages No. 12-118, asked Members to decide whether the Churchdown and Innsworth Neighbourhood Development Plan should be made part of the development plan for Tewkesbury Borough following the positive outcome in the referendum held on Thursday 12 March 2020.

7.2            In introducing the report, the Lead Member for Built Environment explained that the Churchdown and Innsworth Neighbourhood Development Plan had been to community referendum on 12 March 2020 after advancing through an independent examination. In the referendum, 91.20% of those that voted, voted that the Plan should be used to help Tewkesbury Borough Council to decide planning applications in the neighbourhood area, as such, the Borough Council now had to agree that the Neighbourhood Development Plan be ‘made’ part of the development plan for Tewkesbury Borough. The Member therefore proposed that the Churchdown and Innsworth Neighbourhood Development Plan be made part of the development plan for Tewkesbury Borough; and that authority be delegated to the Head of Development Services, in agreement with the Parish Council acting as the Qualifying Body, to correct any minor errors such as spelling, grammar, typographical or formatting errors that did not affect the substantive content of the plan.

7.3            In seconding the proposal, a Member noted the considerable amount of work that had gone into the Plan and offered his thanks to the steering group and, in particular, the Clerks that had administered the group. He indicated that his opinions on the plan were well known in respect of it not offering sufficient protection in areas such as transport and flooding, but that design, environment and parking were good and, overall, he would encourage Members to vote for the adoption of the Plan. Another Member echoed those comments about supporting what was, on balance, an excellent Plan and in recognising the hard work, effort and expense that went into producing a local Neighbourhood Development Plan. He expressed the view that there was an issue for all Neighbourhood Development Plans which had been created by the revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) last year and the Council needed to address that as an authority. The assessment of the five-year housing land supply and Paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which stated that, “in situations where the presumption (at Paragraph 11d) applies to applications involving the provision of housing, the adverse impact of allowing development that conflicts with the neighbourhood plan is likely to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, provided all of the following applies: a) the neighbourhood plan became part of the development plan two years or less before the date on which the decision is made; b) the neighbourhood plan contains policies and allocations to meet its identified housing requirement; c) the local planning authority has at least a three year supply of deliverable housing sites (against its five year housing supply requirement, including the appropriate buffer as set out in Paragraph 73); and d) the local planning authority’s housing delivery was at least 45% of that required over the previous three years”, acted against all local plans to the point which seemed to make planning almost worthless in some cases. This was an unacceptable situation where Tewkesbury Borough Council and its Parishes, who were committed to meeting the needs of its communities, were being undermined through planning regulations which were designed to achieve different things in different parts of the country. He felt there needed to be an urgent change to Paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework and intended to write to ask the local MP to take the matter up with the appropriate government departments to address the intolerable situation.

7.4            Other Members agreed with those points and questioned how much value could be attached to the Neighbourhood Development Plan when the whole purpose was to enable local people to get actively involved in development in their local area but changes to guidance were undermining efforts and meant that, after a couple of years, the Neighbourhood Plan documents would be valueless; particularly when they often took more than three years to put together. In addition, if the Borough Council continued with a lack of five-year housing supply the Neighbourhood Development Plans would be voided anyway.

7.5            A Member expressed the view that the document was an impressive vision of a Neighbourhood Development Plan with a wide community input and desire for environmental requirements including green spaces, allotments, orchards, active travel and community facilities; this was a very appealing portrait of Churchdown and Innsworth and she offered her congratulations to those involved. In terms of the current planning regulations, a Member questioned whether it would be possible to send something out to Parish and Town Councils to make them aware of the issues as there were many that were not fully informed of the difficulties. In response, the Interim Head of Development Services advised that the matter had been raised by the Lead Member and Officers were working on advice for Parishes. The Lead Member advised that many Parishes engaged consultants and/or the Gloucestershire Rural Community Council when putting together their Neighbourhood Development Plans and those organisations were aware of the new policy and National Planning Policy Framework so could advise the Parishes accordingly. She would also ensure an item was placed on the Agenda for the next Parish and Town Councils seminar.

7.6            The Leader of the Council thanked Members for their comments and confirmed that, as this issue was wider than the Churchdown and Innsworth Neighbourhood Development Plan, he would write the letter sharing the Council’s concerns about changes to the National Planning Policy Framework etc. as he had intended to do and would share it with Members once he had all the information he needed. It was suggested that further weight would be added to the letter if it was signed by all Group Leaders and therefore showed cross-party support. The Leader thanked the Member for his statement of support and indicated that he would do what he could to take those steps.

7.7            A Member questioned whether recommendation 2 on the report should refer to Parish Councils rather than Parish Council and, in response, the Planning Policy Manager advised that, in this case, Churchdown Parish Council was the Parish Council acting as the qualifying body but in reality any changes would be agreed with both Churchdown and Innsworth Parish Councils.

7.8                     Upon being put to the vote, it was

                 RESOLVED           1. That the Churchdown and Innsworth Development Plan be                                  made part of the development plan for Tewkesbury Borough.

                                                2. That authority be delegated to the Head of  Development                                     Services, in agreement with the Parish Council acting as the                                     qualifying body, to correct any minor errors such as spelling,                                   grammar, typographical or formatting errors that do not affect                                   the substantive content of the plan.

Supporting documents: