Agenda item

To consider the consultation responses to the initial consultation and approve a publication version for further consultation.

The report is attached and copies of appendices 1 – 4 are available via the Council’s website, at Reception at the Town Hall and for Councillors in the Group Rooms.

Please note that it is likely there will be an update to appendix no.2 (Officer Responses and Actions Housing Growth) and this will be provided as soon as possible.

As noted at Minute 35 above, a question to the Leader in respect of this item had been received from Mr David Rose, as set out below:

Why are Redditch Borough Council still advocating building between 600 and 3,400 houses in Webheath, when Redditch Borough Council Planning Committee on 22nd May, 3013 voted against Taylor Wimpey building 200 new houses, (which surely means that Redditch Borough Council have decided not to build in Webheath), because of poor highway infrastructure, over subscribed local schools, poor unsustainable infrastructures (including foul sewage) etc.?

The Leader replied as follows:

Paragraph 3.16 in the Report answers this question and explains why an early planning application from a developer, on part of a proposed site, is different to the consideration of sites for inclusion through the Plan making process.

3.16 “…With regards to Policy 48 Webheath, Officers are aware that the Council refused planning permission on 22^nd May 2013 for a proposal on part this Strategic Site set out in the Draft Local Plan No.4. The refusal was based upon the proposal’s additional traffic generation on the local road network coupled with the lack of suitable infrastructure to support the development and the lack of contribution towards the wider highway network infrastructure; however this does not alter the fact that the proposal site and the remainder of the Webheath Strategic Site is capable of sustainable delivery in the short to medium term, subject to necessary infrastructure being delivered. This Strategic Site should therefore continue to feature in the Proposed Submission version of the Borough of Redditch Local Plan No.4.”

More details will follow later this year on the viability of the site to be able to deliver the necessary infrastructure. This will confirm whether there are showstoppers to the Local Plan’s proposed allocated sites being delivered sustainably. The necessary works for the Foxlydiate site will be tested through detailed highway modelling. The costs of wider highway infrastructure and other sustainable transport costs will need to be aggregated to the Webheath site and to the cross boundary site at Foxlydiate in order to test the viability accurately. The cost of implementing necessary sewerage treatment for the two sites is borne by both the developer (for the on-site drainage, connection, pumping station and pressurised sewer) and Severn Trent Water and therefore has little impact on the ability of the site to be delivered, in any case the cost of upgrade works to serve these sites would not be vastly different to the alternative site options.

Mr Rose subsequently asked the following supplementary question of the Leader:

The Leader was asked to which overseeing Local Government watchdog local residents might complain regarding the proposal by the Council to contradict the decision made by its Planning Committee and the throwing of money at a scheme which was not sustainable.

Officers provided the following answer to this supplementary question on behalf of the Leader:

Until the Local Plan inquiry process was under way there was no recourse for local residents, developers or any other interested party to complain about the content of the document. Officers undertook to seek confirmation that there was no further redress for parties to the Local Plan process and pass on any further details to Mr Rose following the meeting.

Officers then presented the printed report. It was noted that the report contained summaries of all consultation responses received during the last consultation in April to May 2013 and details of minor changes made as a consequence. There were no responses received which brought into doubt the key points in the draft Plan. Therefore the amount of residential and employment development required to the end of the Plan period was not suggested to change and neither were the main locations suggested for such development.

It was reported that most of the comments received had related to the rejection of Bordesley as a preferred option for future housing development. Officers confirmed that the rejection of Bordesley was based on its visual prominence and the harmful effect on the retention of the openness of the Green Belt. Development at Bordesley would also considerably reduce the gap between Redditch and Alvechurch as well as the strategic gap with Birmingham.

The meeting was informed that Members of the Committee and other Members of the Council had had the opportunity to consider the appendices to the report and consider in detail all the consultation responses through briefings from Officers, the documents being made available in Group Rooms and through meetings of the Planning Advisory Panel in recent months.

The Portfolio Holder stressed the need for the Borough to have a sound Local Plan and reminded those present that, even following any approval of the Committee’s recommendations by the Council the following week, there would be a further period during which the soundness of the Plan could be challenged before it was presented to the Secretary of State and his inspectors for rigorous examination.

The question was raised as to why Officers were being offered delegated authority to make revisions, technical corrections and editorial changes without reference back to all Members. In order to allay any such concerns it was proposed that such changes be made by Officers following consultation with the Portfolio Holder and the Leader of the Opposition.

Officers were asked what processes were to be used to publicise the Local Plan process and to assist local residents and others to become involved in the next stage in its development. The Committee was informed that there were no plans to go out to local centres or hold road shows at present because the forthcoming stage in the process was different in nature to earlier stages. Officers would make themselves available to members of the public to help them to fill out the forms through which comments on the soundness of the Plan might be submitted. A lay-persons guide was also to be prepared to this end. Officers added that they had been proactive in meeting with those individuals and groups locally who had demonstrated an interest in the process but stated they were prepared to hold surgeries in other parts of the town should Members feel it necessary.

There was some discussion around certain details of the proposals. The possible access routes to the area around Webheath and potential bus routes were discussed. Officers advised that Highways Officers of the County Council would be attending a meeting of the Planning Advisory Panel on 17^th September 2013 at which Members would have the opportunity to ask detailed questions of them. Officers referred to Appendix 5 of Appendix 3 to the Report which stated that an overall transport assessment would be undertaken in due course. Furthermore, Members were advised that the Local Plan documents set out the issues that any potential future developers would need to address but were not designed to establish every detail of every possible development area.

The proposal within the Local Plan to designate land within the Winyates area for housing and employment use was raised given a stance taken by the Council several years earlier on a proposal from Stratford-upon-Avon District Council to carry out similar development. Officers were able to confirm that the negative view taken at that time was based on inadequate highways infrastructure based, as it was, on access from Far Moor Lane. The current proposals were for a direct access from the Coventry Highway which was considered to be sustainable.

RECOMMENDED that

1)            the Officer responses and actions (Appendix 1) to consultation held on Draft Borough of Redditch Local Plan No.4 be endorsed;

2)            the Officer responses and actions (Appendix 2) to consultation held on Redditch Housing Growth be endorsed;

3)            the Proposed Submission Borough of Redditch Local Plan No.4 (Appendix 3) and Sustainability Appraisal (Appendix 4) for representations to be made by statutory bodies and members of the public, commencing 30th September 2013 until 11^th November 2013 be approved;

4)            authority be delegated to the  Executive Director of Planning, Regeneration, Regulatory and Housing Services/Head of Planning and Regeneration and the Development Plans Manager following consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regeneration and the Leader of the Opposition to review the representations made following the close of the representations period, and that subject to no significant weaknesses being raised to doubt the soundness of the draft Plan (for tests of soundness see paragraph 3.20 of this report), that the Borough of Redditch Local Plan No.4 be submitted to the Secretary of State for examination in December 2013;

5)            authority be delegated to the Executive Director of Planning, Regeneration, Regulatory and Housing Services/Head of  Planning and Regeneration and the Development Plans Manager following consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regeneration and the Leader of the Opposition to prepare and submit the necessary documents to support Submission of the Local Plan; and

6)            authority be delegated to the Executive Director of Planning, Regeneration, Regulatory and Housing Services/Head of Planning and Regeneration and the Development Plans Manager following consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regeneration and the Leader of the Opposition, to undertake such further revisions, technical corrections and editorial changes deemed necessary in preparing the Local Plan for submission to the Secretary of State and to agree subsequent changes where appropriate during the examination.

(At 7.49pm, following consideration of this item, there was a short adjournment. The meeting reconvened at 7.53pm.)