Agenda and minutes

Local Needs Occupancy (LNO) –

RB: Consultation doc covers interlinked issues but to effectively debate them we’re breaking it down into components. This is to look at MTs and SVs and OVs and specific policy choices around LNO and PRC and Dev Limits and other specific policy choices – e.g. self-build – taking place in further meetings. Likely to take place after the current consultation is finished so you can consider all responses together.

Site Selection Method –

RB explained the SSM. Staged process. Stage 1 is initial sieve; relates to size/conformity to settlement hierarchy. Detailed assessments will only take place once settlement hierarchy has been established. It was asked that the Site Selection Methodology be provided as an appendix. 

The Consultation is ongoing. We expect to be able to bring to members the full suite of consultation responses before discussing policy choices. The consultation document sets out how the LNO works and runs through the pros and cons of the policy.

Concern about the LNO and lack of public knowledge on this area.

Standard method for housing -

Meeting standard method housing requirement of 184 dwellings, is that using the current governments methodology ahead of the government changing it at some point?

RB: standard method is the government’s algorithm approach to identifying housing required in each Local Authority area. White paper has been published and that discusses growth as levelling up agenda; that may well be translated into higher housing requirements, and that will be translated through how the algorithm is changed regarding the standard method. We will have to, in effect, wait and see as to what may happen. It’s not ideal. We work business as usual until we receive info that necessitates a different course.

If we chose not to accept changes from government, is it likely that the plan would then fail on inspection?

RB: yes, we would need to follow the government aspirations in relation to meeting the 5 year land supply in line within the levelling up agenda.

If not in line with what the government prescribe we need to understand the consequences. If we fail to meet the new method, this could mean we are back to planning by appeal.

Should not speculate and continue as we are with current legislation for now.

RB: the local plan strategy will remain as the development plan until it us supersede by a plan created by the new authority – within 5 years of the new authority forming. It will continue to have full weight, unless the housing land supply dipped below the five year figure. That being said we have a healthy land supply and significant allocations still to be rolled out.

The levelling up agenda and change to the algorithm would have significant implications for the review of the plan – and could stop it in its tracks effectively – if the levelling up of housing is that significantly different. That’s the big unknown.

Moving on to consultation responses- focused on development limits and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

Cllr Andrews: before RB takes us through the maps of Service Villages, I want to make an initial point. We are not making decisions tonight – we are just looking at the sites at the moment. Let’s look at the plans.

RB: just want to take Members through the site assessment process first for context –this document will be sent out to members in due course.

This methodology is similar to what we used for the sites allocation previously. But we have updated our SA to be in line with our current environment aspirations. The SA process provides an initial sift of sites through Distribution of Development, site size, biodiversity risk, Flood Risk etc. The methodology works in such a way that, if sites are raising issues in the first stage and are seen as red flags they will then proceed to stage 2. Some of the factors you have been discussing tonight relate to these issues in the methodology site selection. A key aspect is the settlement hierarchy.

The first stage of assessment looks at accessibility, services/facilities, employment areas etc – also could there be neighbouring services.

Then flood risk – the sequential test and undertaking Highway assessment.

Third element of SA process:  Biodiversity,  geodiversity, special quality landscape and setting, culture and heritage consider greenhouse gas and renewal energy, Sustainable building and waste reductions, Efficient use of land natural resources, Amenity , flood risk in detail, Considerations around community need service and facility and housing need and creating a strong economy.

Councillor Andrews as chair asked for the sites and the site assessment process to be provided as an appendix to the minutes. To conclude I would like to suggest we create an appendix, not in great detail but brief comments from each member and Officers made against various sites. Not to make decisions or recommendations but to capture general points and discussions.

Members viewed and discussed the site submissions for Service Villages.

Members were made aware of the anticipated submission of a collection of sites from Castle Howard.

Action: Members to come back to Officers within a week with comments (agreed) on the consultants brief when it is prepared (meeting on the 1st March).

Date of next meeting – Wednesday 9th March.

Date of further meeting Tuesday 29th March. Both 6pm starts.

Meeting closed: 20:36