Agenda item

To consider the Draft Uttlesford Local Plan 2021 – 2041 for (Regulation 18) Consultation.  

Councillor Evans presented the report on Uttlesford’s draft Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation. He said the district desperately needed an updated Local Plan, with the previous Local Plan being adopted in 2005, making it one of the oldest in the country. He said it was time to get on with this overdue task as the consequences were one of continued speculative development in the district. He said the decision tonight was for the draft Local Plan to advance to the consultation step of the process, after which public responses would be considered by the Local Plan Leadership Group (LPLG). This would lead to changes to the draft Local Plan which would be considered by Council at the Regulation 19 stage of the process. He proposed the recommendations set out in the report.

 

Councillor Lees seconded the proposal and reserved the right to speak.

 

The Chair invited members to open the debate.

 

Councillor Barker said the settlement definitions included in the Plan, such as what constituted a small or large village, were ambiguous and it was unclear how each settlement had been categorised. She asked why the Countryside Protection Zone (CPZ) area was being proposed for development. Furthermore, a quarter of the housing allocations could fall away between now and the Regulation 19 decision; therefore, there was a great deal of uncertainty regarding how the draft Local Plan would progress.

 

Councillor Sell said there had not been enough member engagement throughout the process but residents deserved a Local Plan. He said whilst the document was not perfect, the draft Local Plan needed to be approved for Regulation 18 consultation in order for the public to have their say. He said he and the Liberal Democrat Group had concerns regarding the percentage of affordable housing prescribed in the policy, which would decrease from 40% to 35% in the emerging Local Plan, and that the LPLG needed to meet more often in public for the next stage in the process.

 

Councillor Pavitt said as Vice-Chair of the LPLG that the draft Local Plan had been subjected to the proper process and that the vote before members tonight was not to approve the Local Plan, but to give the public an opportunity to comment on the proposals. He said that individuals who were currently opposed to the draft Plan would have an opportunity to lodge an official response by way of the Regulation 18 consultation. Members would have another opportunity to vote against the draft Local Plan at the Regulation 19 if they felt it was not fit for purpose. He urged Council to support the recommendation as they did not have the luxury of time and the draft Local Plan needed to be progressed.  

 

 Councillor Martin left the meeting at 8.19pm and returned at 8.21pm.

 

Councillor Alex Reeve commended the document and said the Local Plan was a chance to get things right in Uttlesford and protect against speculative development. He said the draft Local Plan was sympathetic to the district’s character, as per the design guide suggestions for Thaxted.

 

 

Councillors Loveday and Davey left the meeting at 8.27pm and returned at 8.30pm.

 

Councillor Dean said the Local Plan timetable could be slowed down in order for more work to be undertaken before the Regulation 18 consultation. This would mean less time between Regulation 18 and 19 decisions but would provide members with a better understanding of the proposals.

 

Councillor Church left the meeting at 8.29pm and returned at 8.31pm.

 

Councillor McBirnie said it was right to allow all citizens in the district to comment on the draft Local Plan; this could not be done if the draft Plan was not approved for the Regulation 18 consultation. He said Uttlesford was an outlier by virtue of having such an outdated Local Plan and this was leading to uncontrolled development across the district, and cited examples in his own Ward to demonstrate that significant building that was already taking place. By having a Local Plan in place, more schools, open spaces (e.g. football pitches, play areas) and infrastructure would be made available to residents.

 

Councillor Gregory left the meeting at 8.38pm and returned at 8.40pm.

 

Councillor Loughlin asked why the CPZ had been included in the draft Local Plan, whereas the ‘Green Belt’ had been considered unsuitable for development. She said that the rural areas around Stansted Airport had to be protected. She urged residents to respond to the consultation and said it was not a tick box exercise but a true part of the democratic process. She said she was disappointed by the reduced affordable housing allocation and urged that it be set at 40%. However, she would be supporting the draft local Plan for Regulation 18 consultation.

 

Councillor Fiddy said a delay to the draft Local Plan would result in a delay to good quality housebuilding and not prevent housebuilding per se. She said operating without an updated Local Plan in place was destructive for local communities and the environment and had led to a lack of infrastructure. It was in the public interest to send the document out for consultation and she urged members to support the recommendation.

   

Councillor Moran expressed concerns regarding the lack of infrastructure in villages where the proposed increase in housing numbers would result in a significant rise to the current population. He cited the example of Thaxted which he said was forecasted to rise by 37%. An extra bus service would not be enough to relieve the additional traffic on the road network.

 

Councillor Coletta said that members who had a substantial allocation of housing in their ward were caught “between a rock and a hard place” in terms of producing a sound Local Plan for the district and protecting the communities which had elected them. He raised serious concerns in respect to the current state of infrastructure in Takeley, with particular regard paid to the road network and the lack of water infrastructure in the village. He would be voting against the proposal on behalf of residents.

 

Councillor Church said it was essential to protect the CPZ and it was not in the public interest to put the draft Local Plan out for consultation if it was not fit for purpose. He said the advice provided to Councillor Bagnall on declaration of interests was unacceptable.

 

Councillor Hargreaves said the draft Local Plan contained some excellent Development Management policies which would assist the Council’s Planning Committee but further work was required before Regulation 19. The document was three times the length of the NPPF and twice that of the 2005 Local Plan and required far fewer words. He was concerned that too many words would “make easy picking for lawyers. He said the new “active travel routes” were not adequate, as demonstrated by the case of Newport where the suggested travel solution was to provide new residents with an e-bike to deal with the issue of road congestion. A policy on water and sewage infrastructure was also required. He looked forward to seeing the next version of the document following the consultation.

 

Councillor Armstrong left the meeting at 8.59pm and returned at 9.06pm.

 

Councillor Criscione said the emerging Local Plan would affect the district beyond its twenty-year span and would impact on generations to come. He said some councils had not adopted a Local Plan for seventy years, so it was right not to rush into a decision and to get the draft Local Plan right before proceeding to Regulation 18 consultation. The Regulation 18 draft Local Plan would hold “little weight” at this stage in the process but there were concerns that developers could use any unsound policies against the Council if the draft Local Plan was approved for consultation. There would be implications for the Council if the Local Plan was deemed to have not been properly prepared and he would be voting against the recommendation as further work should be undertaken, particularly on site allocations and the use of land in the CPZ.

 

The Chair sought Council’s consent to proceed beyond 9.00pm. The Council consented.

 

Councillor Martin left the meeting at 9.00pm.

 

Councillor Emanuel said she had grappled with the decision, but a draft Local Plan was needed in order to control development in the district. She said further revision and improvement were required following the consultation, such as in respect of site allocations and the affordable housing policy.

 

Councillor Asker left the meeting at 9.04pm and returned at 9.07pm.

 

Councillor Gregory said the draft Local Plan did not need to be perfect at this stage but it met the necessary test for sufficiency and it was ready for public consultation. He said the district was in the throes of a “fourth Industrial revolution” due its location in the London-Cambridge corridor, Stansted Airport and its proximity to the “bio-tech” industry. It was important to move the draft Local Plan onto the next step in the process to prevent more speculative development in the district that was being delivered without the required infrastructure, and to give people the chance to have their say on the proposals. He said members had a responsibility to all citizens in the district and he would be voting for the proposals.

 

Councillor Ahmed left the meeting at 9.06pm and returned at 9.09pm.

 

Councillor Haynes said he had a number of serious concerns relating to process, the evidence base and housing allocations contained in the draft. In terms of process, he said there had not been enough public engagement, which was disappointing considering the council had won an innovation award for its engagement with the public in the early stages of the process. Furthermore, there had been no public LPLG meetings for nine months. Evidence was missing in regards to traffic studies, landscape assessments, analysis of key views, heritage and setting policies, and the Thaxted Neighbourhood Plan had been ignored. Furthermore, sites which had failed at appeal had been included in the draft Local plan. In conclusion, he said it was misleading to say these issues would be ironed out during the Regulation 18 consultation.  He said the amount of weight given to the draft Local Plan was subjective and he would be voting on behalf of his ward constituents against the proposals.

 

Councillor Tayler said he was confident it was the right time to put the draft Local Plan for public consultation and disagreed with any calls for delay. He said this would result in further developer led applications. The public consultation would provide an opportunity to refine the evidence base, as well as for the public to provide comment. This was an exercise in “joint decision making” owned by residents rather than developers.

 

Councillor Moran left the meeting at 9.15pm and returned at 9.18pm.

 

Councillor Coote said the draft Local Plan should have included social, not affordable, housing and he would make efforts to increase the percentage of affordable housing in the policy from 35% to 40%. He said a Local Plan was needed in order to make community the key consideration in emerging developments, rather than the drive for developer profits.

 

Councillor Luck said the draft Local Plan had been recommended for approval by the cross-party LPLG working group and the Scrutiny Committee, subject to the evidence base being made available to members. He said it was important to proceed otherwise the Council would be in the same position many years down the line.

 

Councillor Freeman commended the draft Local Plan and said it was ready for consultation. As the Chair of the Planning Committee, he said this would empower the Council to improve developments in the interests of residents. Whilst the draft document was not perfect, it was constructive, and he urged members to support the consultation so the public could have their say.

 

Councillor Gooding said there were always winners and losers in a Local Plan process but the decision before members this evening was whether the draft Local Plan was ready for consultation. He said further information was required before the draft document was ready for consultation and he would be voting against the proposals.

 

Councillor Neil Reeve said the Council had to follow the regulations imposed by central Government and get on with producing a Local Plan. He urged members to support the Regulation 18 consultation as without a Local Plan the district would be open to speculative development. He said it was impractical to delay the process and it was right to allow the community to respond to the proposals by way of the consultation.

 

Councillor Lees was invited to speak as seconder of the proposal. She said that there had been absolutely no political interference in the draft Local Plan, as deals between members would result in a failed Local Plan as per previous attempts, and the proposals put forward were based on evidence. She said the LPLG would be reconstituted and that a rolling programme of public meetings would be introduced in future. Residents were urged to respond to the consultation as each comment would be taken into account and community events would be scheduled in due course to help inform the public. Each settlement in the district had experienced speculative development but the Regulation 18 consultation would give people an opportunity to have their say. She said the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) stated that at this stage, the draft Local Plan held no weight.

 

The Chair invited Councillor Evans to summarise the debate as proposer of the substantive motion. He thanked Council for a civilized and respectful debate, and thanked members of the public who had contributed to the process to date. He commended the officers for providing objective advice and urged members to approve the draft Local Plan for the Regulation 18 consultation.

 

Councillor Criscione raised a point of personal explanation; he said the statement made by Councillor Lees regarding the draft Local Plan holding no weight at Regulation 18 was incorrect and contradicted his earlier contributions to Council.

 

Councillor Lees said the information could be found in paragraph 48 in the NPPF; she clarified and said it held very limited weight, but this would increase as the draft Local Plan progressed to the Regulation 19 stage of the process.

 

The Chair looked to take the matter to a vote; Councillor Barker requested a recorded vote:

 

 

The vote was carried with 22 votes for, 11 against and 2 abstentions.

 

            RESOLVED to:

 

I.                 Agree the Draft Uttlesford Local Plan 2021 – 2041 (Regulation 18) document be published for six weeks consultation 3rd November 2023 to 15th December 2023.

II.               Provide delegated authority for the Director of Planning, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Infrastructure and Stansted Airport to make any minor corrections prior to consultation, including for typographical and formatting purposes.

III.              Note the suite of technical supporting evidence published alongside the Draft Uttlesford Local Plan 2021 – 2041 consultation.

 

The meeting was closed at 9.58pm.