Agenda and minutes

Both Cllr P Andrews, and potentially Cllr Thackray have amendments they wish to make to the current minutes.

It was agreed by all that the minutes had a provisional approval, subject to Thackray and Andrews’ amendments.

Taking us through Site Selection Methodology (SSM)

Cllr P Andrews stated that he intends not to spend a lot of time discussing this document and reiterated that Members are not looking to approve this document tonight.

ML briefly explained the changes from the previous SSM. In summary, there have been few changes and the document serves the same purpose: it is a technical document that enables us to appraise sites and policies as to matters of sustainability. There are some changes and additions based on contextual and legislative changes; for instance, specific consideration of Biodiversity Net Gain.

Members’ discussion

Cllr Potter requested an explanation of the term Geodiversity.

RB explained that geodiversity relates to sites that make an important geological contribution in terms of understanding landscapes and scientific matters around geology. If a relevant site (for instance, an historic quarry) was proposed to have development on, the ability to consider such properties of the site could be lost; similarly to the approach to sites of archaeological importance.

Cllr P Andrews and Thackray discussed the lack of reference to ‘cycling distance’ in Stage 2 Assessment 1 of the SSM. It was suggested that accessibility should not solely be considered by walkable distances and/or people’s ability to walk. Transdev are going to provide Cllr Thackray with the number of people that uses buses.

Cllr Potter ask for clarity in relation to assessing flood risk, and felt that – given climate change moving forward – perhaps the flood risk checks should be more tight.

ML confirmed that the approach to assessing flood risk is more stringent now than in the previous SSM, further to consultation with the Environment Agency.

Cllr Thackray raised concerns regarding the Environment Agency and flood zones. It was suggested that flood maps keep changing and smaller settlements are modelled from unrelated town patterns.

Cllr Thackray also noted that he would like to see the full Local Plan being amended, not just a partial review.

Cllr Goodrick raised concerns that there would not be time to rewrite the plan before we go into LGR.

Item 2 – Other Villages

Members were presented with a list of 46 ‘Other Villages’ (as per the current settlement hierarchy) in which we have received site submissions.

To provide a structure, Officers broadly categorised them as follows: Settlements with both a school and bus stop, Settlements with either a school or bus stop, Settlements with limited services; and Settlements with no services.

Rachael provided general overview of sites, Matt discussed the policy constraints, Lizzie ran through service and facilities and school catchments. Members then offered general commentary about the settlements and some sites.

It was noted that – regarding school catchments – parental preference and school popularity is an additional determiner of where children go to school, beyond the basic catchment maps.

Members’ comments

Members discussed school capacity and some agreed that capacity within schools is something that is ever changing and sometimes difficult to predict. Bus service is another consideration point. School popularity can  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.

A number of Members had not yet been able to fully read the Consultancy brief document. It was agreed that all Members would submit any comments by Monday, if there are no other amendments it can then be agreed.

Meeting closed 21:33