Issue - meetings

Report of the Executive Director of Place

The Cabinet considered a report of the Executive Director of Place, which sought endorsement of an officer response to Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council’s new Borough Plan – Publication Draft and supporting documents.

Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council (NBBC) formally published their New Borough Plan for a period of representations on the 26^th October 2015. The period of representations ran for 6 weeks until the 18th December 2015 in accordance with national Regulations relating to the submission of Local Plans.  In addition to the Borough Plan, NBBC had also published an updated Statement of Community Involvement as well as a site options document for Gypsy and Traveller sites and the first stage of the Community Infrastructure Levy for consultation.  Given the timescales involved, officers had submitted an officer representation to NBBC to ensure initial comments had been provided. It was this representation that was attached as Appendix 1a to the report submitted and presented to members for their endorsement or amendment.  To reflect the relevance of the Borough Plan to the Duty to Co-operate a joint officer response had also been prepared by Coventry City Council, Warwick District Council, Rugby Borough Council, North Warwickshire Borough Council and Stratford on Avon District Council. This joint response was closely aligned to the City Council’s own response and was attached as Appendix 1b to the report.

In summary, the City Council was unable to support the Borough’s plan at this time for the following reasons:

·  The Borough Plan did not (as currently presented) make any positive attempts to plan for the unmet housing need originating from Coventry;

·  Instead, the Borough Plan sought to delay any action until further work was completed on the NBBC Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. This meant the Plan was not supported by an up to date evidence base and meant all development options may not have been subject to appropriate consideration in terms of infrastructure needs or Sustainability Appraisal;

·  A number of development proposals were identified on the city’s administrative boundary which would represent extensions to the city’s urban area. Although these may be acceptable in principle the City Council had received limited notification of such proposals or invitations to comment on potential infrastructure implications; and

·  The Borough Plan also sought to delay any support for the city’s unmet need by suggesting further consultation may be required. For the reasons set out above, further consultation was inevitable to secure a sound plan and help respond to the unmet need arising from Coventry.

In relation to the supporting documents, the Council’s response highlighted the following key points:

  The Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) - Additional reference needed to be added to Appendix A to ensure neighbouring authorities were considered under the duty to cooperate.

  The Community Infrastructure Levy and the Infrastructure Delivery Plan -  The importance of cross boundary infrastructure, especially in relation to sites adjacent the city boundary.

  Gypsy and Traveler site options - The document proposesd a number of sites that could potentially be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 103