| Reference Number :- | 2354 |
| Date :- | 2013/11/08 |
| Decision Maker :- | Cabinet |
| Subject to Call-in :- | No |
| Subject of Decision :- | Tendring District Local Plan - Pre-Submission Focussed Changes |
| Decision :- | (a) That the Planning and Corporate Services Portfolio Holder’s responses, as set out below, to the Community Leadership and Partnerships Committee’s recommendations be approved; RECOMMENDATION FROM THE COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP AND PARTNERSHIP COMMITTEE PLANNING AND CORPORATE SERVICES PORTFOLIO HOLDER RESPONSE a) Cabinet authorises officers to relook at the proposed change to development in Alresford (PM7.1) and agree to land at St. Andrew’s Close being allocated for development as an alternative to land off Cockaynes Lane, in acceptance of arguments made by residents, the local Parish Council and the local Ward Member. Response: Officers have re-evaluated the situation and it is agreed that the development proposed for Alresford can be focussed on land off St. Andrew’s instead of land off Cockaynes Lane. Recommended change(s): Major Change MAJ11.2 to be amended to delete Policy KEY2 ‘Development South of Cockaynes Lane, Alresford’ and Policies Map Change PM7.1 be amended to allocate land off St. Andrew’s Close for residential development instead of land off Cockaynes Lane. b) The first paragraph of revised Policy ‘PLA10: ‘Renewable Energy Installations’ (MAJ5.2) be amended to delete the words “including community-led renewable projects, onshore and offshore wind farm proposals”. Response: This change is agreed. Recommended change(s): Major Change MAJ5.2 to be amended to delete the words “including community-led renewable projects, onshore and offshore wind farm proposals” from the first paragraph of Policy PLA10. c) Cabinet agrees to revisit the proposed fourth paragraph of revised Policy ‘PLA10: ‘Renewable Energy Installations’ (MAJ5.2) to consider giving greater protection to productive agricultural land. Response: Whilst the protection of productive agricultural land is important, the Council needs to be careful that its policies are not overly-restrictive and therefore contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework. An appropriate change is suggested below. Recommended change(s): Reword this paragraph to read: “Proposals for solar farms will be permitted on low grade agricultural land and other land with no agricultural function. The use of the best and most versatile agricultural land (grades 1, 2 and 3a) agricultural land will be permitted where it can be demonstrated, with evidence, that lower quality land is not available or practical for this use and the benefits of the development outweigh any concerns over the loss of agricultural land.” d) Cabinet look again at policies in the Local Plan relating to the provision of affordable housing to see if more affordable homes can be delivered than currently being suggested. Response: Officers have looked closely at this issue and whilst there is a high projected need for affordable housing, such figures have to be understood in the context of evidence on economic viability and the housing market. The approach that is being taken through Policy PEO10 ‘Council Housing’ alongside the Council’s new approach to allocating Council Housing to people with local connections, as a priority, will help facilitate the delivery of affordable homes for local people first and, through the flexible 10%-25% requirement will ensure that large developments can make a positive contribution toward meeting these requirements in changing economic conditions. Alongside the policies in the Local Plan, the Council is also looking at ways of delivering Council Housing through its Housing Revenue Account in appropriate locations. The only other way of significantly increasing the supply of affordable housing would be to significantly increase the amount of land allocated for housing (of all kinds) in the Local Plan – an approach that, given Tendring’s environmental, economic and infrastructure constraints and the concerns of local residents (expressed through four previous rounds of public consultation), is not considered appropriate. Recommended change(s): No change. e) Given that the recommendation to delete the proposed development at Horsley Cross (MAJ9.4 and PM0.1) is “on-balance”, Cabinet re-consider this recommendation as development in this location may be deliverable during the plan period. Response: Officers have consistently advised that development at Horsley Cross is not sustainable due to its remote location, a considerable distance from established towns and villages, which would increase the need to travel. The new Employment Land Review continues to recommend that there are other, better located sites to deliver the scale of business and industrial development expected to take place in the district. The promoters of the Tendring Europark scheme have yet to submit any compelling evidence to suggest that there is genuine commercial interest from major inward investors wanting to locate to this site. Therefore it is impossible to establish whether or not the economic benefits of development, in terms of job creation, in this location would outweigh the concerns over sustainability and environmental impact on a rural location. With a large number of objections submitted against this proposal challenging the sustainability, need and deliverability of development in this location, its removal from the Local Plan, based on current evidence, is perfectly justified. The Local Plan still has Policy SD5 that allows developments outside of settlement boundaries to be considered on their individual merits, allowing schemes that demonstrate genuine employment opportunities to be considered favourably, so long as the benefits of development outweigh the impacts. Recommended change(s): No change. f) Cabinet consider strengthening the wording of Policy PRO12: ‘Freight Transport and the Movement of Goods’ to give more support to development at Bathside Bay, in light of the Committee’s discussion. Response: The policy and its supporting text, as written, appears to be sufficiently positive to allow such a development to come forward, at the right time and if necessary, to support growth at Bathside Bay. Policy PRO11, in particular, is very supportive of development at Bathside Bay suggesting that the Council will work with other partners to facilitate an early start to the container port development. Paragraph 3.50, in support of Policy PRO12, indicates that some landowners have indicated an interest in providing land to build logistic facilities in support of Bathside Bay. Rather than specifying particular sites for this use, the criteria-based policy enables proposals to be considered, on their individual merits, at the appropriate time. This is considered to be the most sensible approach at this time. Recommended change(s): No change. g) Cabinet agrees to revisit minor change MIN1.18, relating to the vision for the district, to consider making the wording more encouraging and positive toward attracting active retired people to come to the District and contribute toward the local economy. Response: This suggestion is accepted. Recommended change(s): Re-word the relevant paragraph in change MIN1.18 to read: “The district will be the home to people of all ages and abilities providing a wide range of activities, attractions and facilities that will appeal to the active retired, the young and residents of working age. The district will also provide for the specialist needs of all people ensuring, in particular, that children and young people have the opportunity for a good start in life”. h) Cabinet agrees to revisit revised Policy PRO1: ‘Improving the Strategic Road Network’, (MAJ3.2) to include the A137 as a strategic project in its own right to mitigate any traffic impacts on Manningtree and the railway crossing into Suffolk. Response: This suggestion is accepted. Recommended change(s): Include the following additional bullet point within Policy PRO1: • “Explore, in partnership with Essex County Council, Suffolk County Council and Babergh District Council, opportunities to improve the A137 and the railway crossing/underpass at Manningtree Station, ensuring that any developments likely to increase the usage of this route contribute, where appropriate, toward such improvements.” i) Cabinet look again at the depiction of the ‘Historic Towns’ area of Manningtree (PM4.2) and make sure that it is proper – particularly the inclusion of industrial land at its western end. Response: This designation is consistent with that shown in the Adopted Local Plan from 2007 and is based on a 1999 Historic Towns Survey undertaken by Essex County Council. It was originally intended not to show this designation in the new Local Plan because general policies on archaeology and the historic environment were considered to provide sufficient protection, however there was a strong level of representation from St. Osyth residents asking for it to be reinstated. Within this area, the potential for there to be underground archaeological remains are given particular consideration. Therefore whilst the inclusion of land around the industrial area of Lawford appears to be anomalous, the work by Essex Council would suggest that there may be some archaeological value beneath the ground and therefore no changes are proposed. Recommended change(s): No change. (b) That, any further changes to the Tendring District Local Plan: Pre-Submission Focussed Changes, both in response to these comments and any other new evidence, be agreed; (c) That the revised Tendring District Local Plan: Pre-Submission Focussed Changes go forward to full Council to be approved for public consultation prior to the submission of the amended Local Plan to the Secretary of State for examination by a Planning Inspector; and (d) That, following a request received from the school, the Engaines School, Little Clacton Playing Field be designated as a protected open space and that this change be incorporated into the revised Tendring District Local Plan: Pre-Submission Focussed Changes. |
| Reason for Decision :- | Having considered the recommendations of the Community Leadership and Partnerships Committee and the Planning and Corporate Services Portfolio Holder’s responses and in order to allow the Pre-Submission Focussed Changes to be submitted to full Council for its consideration. |
| Alternative Options Considered :- | N/A |
| Conflicts of Interest Delared (and Dispensations Granted by the Monitoring Officer) :- | None Consultation with Ward Member: All |
| Contact Officer :- | Catherine Bicknell - Head of Planning |
| Decision to Take Effect at end of :- | 2013/11/18 |
| Attachments :- | Local Plan Pre-Submission Report (39K/bytes) |