Agenda item

From the Cabinet, 12 January 2016

Further to Minute 104 of the Cabinet, the City Council considered a report of the Executive Director of Place, which sought approval of the New Coventry Local Plan for a period of public consultation.

The Office for National Statistics recognised Coventry as the fastest growing city outside Greater London with continuing job growth and two successful universities.  The Local Plan responded to the growth and the policies and proposals within it to provide a blueprint to support the Council’s overarching aim of re-establishing itself as a Top Ten City.

The Plan identified out how and where the city would grow, develop and change and how the Council would work jointly with its partners and neighbouring authorities to support and facilitate this growth.  It would be managed through a range of policies, designations and allocations, which would cover a broad selection of policy areas, including:

·  Sustainable Development and the Duty to Cooperate;

·  Housing;

·  The Economy, Jobs and Employment;

·  Public Health;

·  Retail, Social, Community and Leisure Uses;

·  The Green Belt and the Wider Green Environment;

·  Heritage and Conservation;

·  Urban and Landscape Design;

·  Accessibility and Transport;

·  Environmental Management, Climate Change and Minerals and Waste; and

·  Infrastructure Provision.

An Objectively Assessed Need for Housing had been identified of 42,400 homes for Coventry between 2011 and 2031.  This had been informed by the Government’s most recent population projections.  It was not possible however to accommodate this level of housing within the City’s administrative boundaries, with the Council’s housing land supply identifying a capacity of approximately 25,000 homes.  A Memorandum of Understanding had therefore been prepared with the six Warwickshire authorities to propose how the remaining housing need would be redistributed and planned for (see Minute 102 above).  The total capacity for new homes was approximately 400 homes higher than the housing requirement agreed in the Memorandum of Understanding with Warwickshire. This helped provide some flexibility to the City’s housing land supply, which was a requirement of national guidance. Included as part of this growth were two proposed urban extensions at Keresley and Eastern Green.  These two areas represented the first sizeable planned expansion of Coventry’s urban area in over 50 years.

In addition to housing needs the plan also responded to the need for employment land.  A total requirement of 354ha had been identified, which reflected both the need for new land but also an allowance for qualitative improvements to the City’s employment land offer.  The plan made provisions for 128ha of employment land within Coventry’s boundaries (but with a further 89ha of employment land at Ansty Park and Ryton Park in Rugby Borough). The remaining requirement was expected to be largely delivered as part of the Gateway proposals in Warwick District.

This would however require the removal of approximately 600ha of land from Coventry’s existing Green Belt to provide approximately 6,600 of these new homes and 41.5ha of the new employment land (potentially supporting the creation of 7,000 new jobs).  The Cabinet noted, however, that only 48% of the land removed from the Green Belt was likely to be developed, meaning less than 10% of the City’s existing Green Belt would be built on over the course of the plan.  This was due to assets such as ancient woodlands being protected by other policy designations and new developments incorporating new publicly accessible and useable green spaces to ensure high quality environments. The majority of the remaining supply would be on brownfield land.

The Plan had also continued to ensure the most sensitive and highest value green spaces remained protected in the most appropriate and robust way. This led to the re-designation of some areas previously referred to as Green Belt being redefined to the new national designation of Local Green Space and reflected the fact they did not meet the purposes of Green Belt policy but perhaps more importantly reflected their importance to local communities within the more urbanised parts of the City. It was also noted that Local Green Space designations carried a very similar level of protection as Green Belt policy.

Notwithstanding the levels of growth expected within Coventry’s boundaries, the City would not be able to achieve its ambition of becoming a Top 10 City again without the support of its neighbouring authorities, and continued working through the Duty to Cooperate.  This reflected the City’s tight administrative boundaries and that a substantial amount of the City’s housing and employment needs would be delivered in Warwickshire, whilst links to the wider Birmingham conurbation would also be vital for longer term economic growth.  The report indicated that there was a genuine chance therefore that some of the development could be brought forward adjacent to the City’s boundaries, most notably to the north, east and south.  The Local Plan identified its support for such proposals where they supported the sustainable growth of the City, but recognised that the final decisions rested with respective authorities.  Indeed, recent proposals such as the Coventry Gateway and the growth of Warwick University were prime examples of how such developments could be achieved.

The version of the Local Plan included at Appendix 1 of the report submitted was the Publication Draft, which meant it was the version of the plan the Council believed was suitable to submit for public examination.  It had been developed over a number of years and had full regard to a wide range of consultation responses, a robust evidence base and the Council’s responsibilities under the statutory Duty to Cooperate.

The Plan had been prepared in accordance with relevant National Legislation and Planning Regulations, which meant, prior to submission, the plan must be published for a statutory period of 6 weeks public engagement (referred to as a period of representations) which focused on the Plans “soundness” and “legal compliance”. This would commence on 18th January 2016.

It would however be necessary to consider all representations to the plan and potentially propose minor amendments prior to its submission to the Secretary of State for Public Examination.  In order to avoid the need for a further report to full Council and the delay to the process that would result, it was intended that the Council delegate responsibility for this to the Executive Director of Place, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Business, Enterprise and Employment, the Chair of the Business, Economy and Enterprise Scrutiny Board (3) and the Chair of Planning Committee. This delegated power would also include a special meeting of Scrutiny Board 3 and the Planning Committee in March 2016.  In the event that significant issues were highlighted with the Local Plan that would affect its legal compliance or overarching soundness and result in the need for major amendments, a further report would be submitted to Cabinet and Council for their consideration.

Accompanying this stage of the new Local Plan was an update of the Local Development Scheme (LDS).  The LDS was a mandatory requirement of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act and set out which documents the Council would produce to establish its new planning policies and when they would be produced. The LDS contained four separate documents planned for development.  These included the Local Plan, the City Centre Area Action Plan, the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and a Supporting Housing Delivery Development Plan Document.

The following amendment (in italics) was moved by Councillor Blundell, seconded by Councillor Crookes and lost:-

“Recommendation 2) delete the word “approves” and insert the word “note”

 Recommendation 3) delete the word “approves” and insert the word “note”

 Recommendation 4) After the words “Authorise a period of” delete the  words” six weeks” and insert the words “three months”. Delete the word  “statutory, then delete the remainder of the sentence, then insert the words “to  include all aspects of the Local Plan”;

Recommendation 5) Delete part of the first line from “Delegate Authority” up to and including “Chair of Planning Committee” and insert the words “Bring back to Full Council”. In line 4, delete the word “statutory”. In the 5^th line, delete the word “minor”. In the 5^th line after “amendments to the Local Plan”, delete the words in brackets “(where this is necessary to correct any errors and aid clarity)”.

Recommendations now to read:

Recommendations

The Council is recommended to:

1)  Consider the responses received to the Local Plan – Delivering Sustainable Growth: September  2014, which are referenced in Para 3.1 and 3.2, summarised in Appendix 3 and contained in full on the Councils website;

2)  Note the "Local Plan Publication Draft (2011-2031)" document;

3)  Note the updated Local Development Scheme (2016);

4)  Authorise a period of three months public engagement to include all aspects of the Local Plan;

5)  Bring back to Full Council to take full account of the responses received to the period of public engagement, propose amendments to the Local Plan and submit the plan to the Secretary of State for a period of Public Examination.”

RESOLVED that the City Council:

1.  Note the responses received to the Local Plan – Delivering Sustainable Growth: September 2014, which are referenced in Paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2, and summarised in Appendix 3 (page 595) of the report submitted and contained in full on the Councils website.

2.  Approve the "Local Plan Publication Draft (2011-2031)" document.

3.  Approve the updated Local Development Scheme (2016).

4.  Authorise a period of six weeks statutory public engagement beginning on 18^th January 2016 and ending on 29^th February 2016.

5.  Delegate authority to the Executive Director of Place, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Business, Enterprise and Employment, the Chair of Scrutiny Board 3 and the Chair of Planning Committee, to take full account of the responses received to the statutory period of public engagement, propose minor amendments to the Local Plan (where this is necessary to correct any errors and aid clarity) and submit the plan to the Secretary of State for a period of Public Examination.

In respect of the above, a recorded vote was required in accordance with Paragraph 18.3 of the City Council's Constitution. The Councillors voting for, against or abstaining in respect of the recommendations were as follows:

For: 32

Against: 10

Abstentions: 0