Minutes:
During the discussion, the following points were made:-
· Councillors queried once the document had been completed in 2021, how much weight it would hold.
In this country there was a plan led system in law, however, we delivered in a ‘nuance’ system where decisions were made in accordance with the government plan unless material consideration indicated otherwise.
· Councillors queried whether the document was able to adapt to the continually changing targets set by Central Government.
Policy and legislation was constantly changing and officers were used to dealing with that.
· Councillors requested clarification on the statement ‘the plan was to give the local community certainty’ and concern was raised over individual planning decisions and that the plan would not carry much weight.
· Councillors queried what the plan’s remit was? Concern was raised on issues with local infrastructure.
· Councillors requested that officers incorporated into the plan any expected conditions for planning applications to address climate change matters.
The Chair advised that comments could be addressed in the consultation and as part of councillor engagement. The Head of Strategy advised that the policy was positively worded, so it gave information on what applicants could do rather than what they could not do, however, developers worked around that. The Planning Committee would need to be aware of that.
· Councillors highlighted how infrastructure and climate change were included in the plan. They further queried how community engagement was carried out in the rural areas as they were not mentioned. They suggested that the wording used for climate change was not strong enough and that they needed to include that the Council was working toward carbon neutrality by 2030.
· Councillors requested that points were added to the document about solar panels and electric car charging points.
· Concern was raised that the Government’s figures on housing needed to be revised as the original figures were too high.
· Councillors also wanted to amend the recommendation to read that any amendments were made in agreement with the portfolio holder instead of in consultation.
That would be addressed when the recommendations were put to the vote.
· Concern was raised that there was no up to date countywide transport strategy included.
The Chair agreed that although SWT had no direct responsibility for transport that we should be enabling that.
· Concern was raised that several stakeholders had not been involved.
· Councillors requested improved religious information was included in the plan.
· Councillors queried when in 2021 would the document be adopted. They further requested that officers could improve the wording used as the whole document was in ‘corporate speak’.
· Councillors requested that the percentage of affordable housing was revised to include an amount of passive housing.
· The Chair advised that although it was a SWT document, that information from the Somerset County Council and Exmoor National Park should not be excluded.
Councillor Mansell proposed the following amendment to the motion:
That the following wording be added to the first bullet point ‘with the addition of working towards carbon neutrality within the key drivers’.
That was seconded by Councillor Buller. The amendment was put to the vote and lost.
Resolved that with regard to the production of the District wide Local Plan, Scrutiny Committee recommended to Executive that:
· Executive approved the Local Development Scheme (enclosed as Appendix 1); and
· Delegated authority was given to the Head of Strategy to agree any necessary final amendments prior to its publication in agreement with the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Transport.