Agenda, decisions and minutes

There 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 relevant 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.

Councillor Laurence Clarke (Poynton Town Council) spoke of their concern at the level of consultation to date with town and parish councils.  With reference to housing numbers he reported that the Neighbourhood Plan for Poynton Town Council supported the provision of 200 units, with there being no objection to housing, but that there was an objection to large developments; it was also considered that better use could be made of brownfield sites and they had estimated that 100 units could be provided by the use of such sites.

Henry Brooks (Tatton Estate Management) said he was delighted at the quantity of work carried out to keep the Local Plan on track and they had worked with the Team to ensure it was sound and completed in time.  He did, however, query why land to north and west of Parkgate Industrial Estate had not been included as an infill site for which there had been 50% support in the consultation on the Knutsford Neighbourhood Plan.  He considered that sustainable development across the Borough needed to concentrate on mixed use developments which would provide communities in which people could both live and work without having to use their cars.

Brian Chaplin (South Knutsford Residents Group) said residents were generally supportive of the plan so far and welcomed the strengthening of heritage policies as this was a vital aspect of both the visitor economy and business attractiveness.  He asked whether sites not currently earmarked would become safeguarded and also whether more land would need to be taken from the green belt; as with Poynton there were other ‘added value’ sites which could be drawn into use.

Terry Griffiths (Knutsford Nether Ward Community Group) said she supported the other Knutsford Groups and that their concern was with the work in progress, sites that were potential additions, and also those in the green belt that had not been included in the proposals.  They objected to the release of green belt for use as employment land.  Also what scope was there for amending the proposed sites or for proposing new ones.

During the following speech the Portfolio Holder declared a personal interest as her husband was a farmer and knew the dairy farmer concerned.

Paul Moonan (Knutsford South East Residents Association) requested an assurance they would be engaged in the final amendments of the plan, and for confirmation of when this would be.  He drew attention to 3 Council owned brownfield sites in Knutsford that could provide approximately 250 additional houses, prevent incursion into the green belt and make up some of the shortfall in housing being looked for.  They did not support the use of land labelled ‘L’, on the Booths Park Estate, one of the main reasons for which was the effect it would have on a Site of Biological Importance and a local dairy farm.  He also referred to a site ‘K’, adjacent to the Longridge Estate, which had the support of all the Knutsford Residents Groups for use for further housing and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

1.    That the suggested revisions to the submitted Local Plan Strategy, as set out in Appendix 2 of the report, be submitted to the Inspector.

2.    That the feedback from the engagement workshops held in early August 2015, as set out within Appendices 3, 4 and 5 of the report, be noted.

3.    The Inspector be informed that, as a consequence of recommendation 2 above, no further suggested revisions are proposed.

4.    It be noted that the sites included within Appendix 7 of the report are amongst those currently being considered by the Council as potential new or amended strategic site allocations and potential new additional Safeguarded Land.

The Head of Planning Strategy introduced this report and the decisions being requested.  The Examination of the Local Plan Strategy had been suspended to allow further work to be carried out on key areas of evidence; that additional work had been carried out and submitted to the Inspector at the end of July 2015 following its consideration by the Cabinet at its meeting on 21 July (Minute 22 refers).

The Council had agreed to prepare modifications to other policies, to be submitted before the potential re-convening of the examination between July and September 2015, and to present draft modifications to sites to show how any uplift in housing and employment provision/numbers could be accommodated in terms of new or amended sites.  In line with this commitment, the information appended to the report provided suggested revisions to strategic policies in Chapters 9-14 of the submitted Local Plan Strategy (LPS).

The Report summarised the feedback from engagement workshops, held in early August, with Town and Parish Councils, community groups and parties interested in the spatial distribution of development in the LPS. It explained the comments made and considered whether changes should be made to the suggested revisions approved by Cabinet in July 2015.

Also included was an update on the Council's continuing site selection work which was intended to provide the Inspector with an update on the progress of that work, which was reaching the final stages of the Site Selection Methodology (SSM), and to demonstrate that the Council's programme to complete the remaining work met the identified target dates within the Inspectors timetable.

The Portfolio Holder recognised the clear desire of local councils and groups to work with the authority to help deliver the Local Plan.  There would be a full opportunity to participate in the consultations and for input across the winter period the results of which would be fed back into the resumed hearing in the spring.  The Plan was being prepared on two levels with the high level policies and housing numbers being considered at the hearings in October, at which there would not be any site discussions, and in parallel preparations were being made for the hearings in the spring into the site allocations. 

In considering the very valued contribution of Neighbourhood Plans, and their reflection of local issues, it was reported that the tension was in respect of timing.  Whilst the progress of the Local Plan could not be slowed very careful consideration was being given to how best to gather all that information together and how to incorporate it into the Local Plan process and there would be room for it to influence the site allocation stage in respect of both local and rural issues.

The Portfolio Holder was asked to endorse the suggested revisions to Chapters 9-14, 16-17 and to the Appendices of the submitted Local Plan. She thanked everybody for their comments and contributions, the Spatial Planning Team for bringing forward the report in the very challenging timeframe available and the Members and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.