Agenda, decisions and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

To provide an opportunity for Members and Officers to declare any disclosable pecuniary and non-pecuniary interests in any item on the agenda.

There were no declarations of interest.

In accordance with Procedure Rules Nos.11 and 35 a period of 10 minutes is allocated for members of the public to address the meeting on any matter relating to the work of the body in question.  Individual members of the public may speak for up to 5 minutes but the Chairman or person presiding will decide how the period of time allocated for public speaking will be apportioned where there are a number of speakers. Members of the public are not required to give notice to use this facility. However, as a matter of courtesy, a period of 24 hours’ notice is encouraged.

Members of the public wishing to ask a question at the meeting should provide at least three clear working days’ notice in writing and should include the question with that notice. This will enable an informed answer to be given.

In accordance with the Procedure Rules for public speaking the Portfolio Holder for Strategic Communities opened the meeting by inviting members of the public to speak.  Some or those present had already submitted their questions beforehand and these were answered in addition to statements and questions that were now put to the Portfolio Holder.

A number of local Members also spoke at this stage.

Keith Williams referred to Ch.11 (Enterprise and Growth).  He considered that the strategy had not been sufficiently analysed, with particular reference to the loss of high value/high technology jobs at AstraZeneca.  He referred to evidence provided by studies of similar situations elsewhere which showed either no growth or further loss of jobs 3 years on.   As a result he recommended that a mixed use strategy should be adopted from the outset.

The Portfolio Holder responded that, with reference to Alderley Park, statements of support were due shortly from AstraZeneca; he undertook to ensure that previous studies as mentioned above would be investigated further.

In addition Mr Williams had submitted the following question prior to the meeting: - Site CS29 Alderley Park

The plan now includes consideration of the Alderley Park site indicating that high value development of parts of the site may be permitted to finance development of the Science for Life concept.  The developed area of the site is in the region of 35ha, more than twice that allocated to employment in Macclesfield’s Strategic sites.  The site is clearly divided into two sections (26ha and 9ha).  Given that no previous redevelopment of similar research sites closed by major pharmaceutical companies has maintained employment at previous levels would it not be prudent adopt a mixed use strategy from the outset? 

The Northern Area Manager Spatial Planning responded that some element of mixed use may well be necessary to support changes at this site, however at the current time the Council is part of a high level task force which seeks to maintain significant employment at this site.  The facility is well placed to retain an employment capability and conversely does not possess many of the linkages that might make other uses more suited to the site.

Manuel Golding (Residents of Wilmslow) read out a letter that had been sent to Mr Nick Boles MP which included reference to the lack of access to research documents, which would not be available for the next 3-4 weeks, meaning that the Council’s Strategy could not be properly assessed against them; it was requested that the consultation be postponed to allow the Core Strategy to be reviewed against this research.  (This letter is reprinted in full under the submission by Stuart Kinsey.)

The Portfolio Holder responded that all the necessary website addresses and links had been made available to gain access to the documentation referred to.  It was confirmed that hard copies of the documents would be on deposit at various locations for members of the public who had problems gaining access electronically.

In addition Mr Golding had submitted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

1.    That the evidence base which has formed the Pre-Submission Core Strategy be endorsed.

2.    That the Officer responses to the consultations on the Shaping our Future documents, published in January and May 2013, be endorsed.

3.    That approval be given to the Pre-Submission Core Strategy for public consultation, taking into account any tabled minor amendments.

4.    That approval be given for the Pre-Submission Core Strategy to be given weight as a material consideration for Development Management purposes with immediate effect.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a short presentation on the preparation of the Local Plan and the many stages, processes, and consultations that had been gone through to reach the current position.  An extensive suite of documents and key policies had been developed and they now made up the Local Plan as a whole.

Of all the contributing parts of the Local plan it was the issues of population and housing that concerned people the most. With reference to the use of Green Belt land he reported that it had become necessary as, whilst development had been constrained in the past, the opposite was now required.  Because of the shortage of space for development in and around towns in the north of the Borough, and the inability of adjacent Authorities to accommodate some of our development for us, it had become necessary to look at using such areas of land.  

With reference to the Pre-Submission Core Strategy being given weight as a material consideration for development management purposes, it was explained that para 216 of the National Planning Policy Framework stated that unless other material considerations indicated otherwise decision takers could give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to certain criteria.  In view of the amount of consultation already carried out, the consideration of public consultation responses by the Strategic Planning Board in respect of the Shaping our Future documents, and that they had been taken into account in finalising the Pre-Submission Core Strategy, it was considered appropriate to attach enhanced weight to it in the decision making process.

The Portfolio Holder confirmed that the decision to be made today was to go out to consultation for a further 6 week period; during that time comments and submissions could be made for final consideration by the Council.   A number of minor changes had been made to the draft Core Strategy since its inclusion on this agenda; these had been circulated at the beginning of the meeting and it would be updated accordingly prior to going out to consultation.

RESOLVED

1.    That the evidence base which has informed the Pre-Submission Core Strategy be endorsed.

2.    That Officer responses to the consultations on the Shaping our Future documents, published in January and May 2013, be endorsed.

3.    That approval be given to the Pre-Submission Core Strategy for public consultation, subject to the minor amendments circulated.

4.    That approval be given for the Pre-Submission Core Strategy to be given weight as a material consideration for development management purposes, with immediate effect.