(a) Question from Councillor Batty addressed to the Leader of the Council
“Is the Leader of the Council aware of the inadequate level of consultation carried out by this Council with local communities in respect of Wind Turbine applications and that the same principle is being applied as for normal built development.
Does the Leader of the Council believe that posting notices on gates at the entrance to fields in the middle of nowhere and the sending of a small number of neighbour consultation letters to residents within a relatively close radius of the application site is an adequate level of public consultation in respect of "sensitive" applications that could impact on the amenity value enjoyed by hundreds if not thousands of people.
Will the Leader agree with me that in such instances whilst the Council may not have a legal obligation to prominently advertise such applications to encourage full public engagement in the planning process, the Council certainly does have a moral obligation and duty of care in the interest of openness and transparency to do so?
Finally, will the Leader agree that officers should in future engage with local members on such applications to ensure that the views of communities have been taken fully into account and that as a matter of Council policy all Wind Turbine applications should be determined by the Council's planning committee.”
Response from Councillor Mayne, Chairman of the Planning Committee
“I would like to thank Councillor Batty for his question.
I’m assuming that Councillor Batty is making specific reference to the application on Land North of Anstey Lane close to Groby.
In that particular case the application was determined in accordance with the Constitution. There is no record of a Council Member calling the matter to Planning Committee, although I understand the Chief Executive is checking why an e-mail sent by you was not received.
In respect of the number of representations received this was below the five required to automatically require the application to be determined by Planning Committee.
Representations were also received from both Charnwood and Blaby Councils, neither of whom objected to the proposal.
The regulations governing the advertising of planning applications are set out in the Development Management Procedure Order 2010.
In respect of a minor application, which this was, the Local Planning Authority must either display a site notice on or near the land to which the application relates or serve notice on any adjoining owner or occupier.
The application that Cllr Batty is specifically concerned about was publicised in accordance with the regulations.
I would accept that there may well be occasions where there needs to be additional consultation over and above the statutory requirements, and there are occasions where that is carried out.
I would also agree that Members and Officers should work constructively together and given that Members are advised in writing on a weekly basis of applications within their ward there is nothing stopping them being proactive and contacting officers directly to discuss any relevant matters.
If Councillor Batty wants all wind turbines to be determined before Planning Committee then that will require a change to the Constitution.”
(b) Question from Councillor Bessant addressed to the Leader of the Council
“Could the leader of the council please advise members when his Administration aims to adopt the Area Action Plan in relation to the proposed Barwell SUE, in order to secure the proper planning of the area, and avoid the risk of the Barwell SUE being developed in isolation?”
Response from Councillor Bray
“Cllr Bessant - Thank you for your question. I can confirm that the Area Action Plan (AAP) for Barwell and Earl Shilton was first published for consultation in January 2011. The final draft version for adoption will be informed by the extensive technical work that has been carried out in connection with the Barwell Planning Application. Whilst the AAP is at an advanced stage, it can only be completed once the County Council has completed its highway modelling work assessing the impacts of both SUEs. This work has been considerably delayed, but I have been assured by officers that LCC are committing to conclude this work by 1 March 2013.
I would remind you that the adopted Local Plan Core Strategy is the key strategic document guiding the development of growth and the SUEs in the Borough. By having this plan in place, it mitigates any risk of the Barwell SUE being developed in isolation. I would reiterate that technical work for the AAP, which is at an advanced stage, has informed this application for Barwell SUE. Senior officers of the County Council have worked extensively with our officers on a range of key requirements, including transport modelling and impact, educational requirements, community facilities and libraries.”
(c) Question from Councillor Bessant addressed to the Leader of the Council
“Could the leader of the council please advise Members of the status of his Administration’s proposed Earl Shilton SUE, especially in light of the recent County Council Decision that they could not support the proposed Barwell SUE because,
i) The County Council had previously stated that the two SUEs needed to be planned and delivered together;
ii) The two SUES have not been planned together and an Area Action Plan, to which any proposed development should conform, has not been concluded and adopted; and
iii) The County Council believes the Barwell SUE proposal has not been adequately assessed by the Borough Council and cannot be supported.”
Response from Councillor Bray
“Earl Shilton SUE is featured in the adopted Local Plan Core Strategy.
The formal response recently received from the County Council is astonishing, given the extensive joint work that County officers have supported over the Area Action Plan (AAP) and Barwell and Earl Shilton SUEs. In fact, the County Council has been leading on the delivery of transport modelling work and on community facilities studies in connection with both SUEs.
The report to the Borough Council’s Planning Committee will include an assessment of the application. Until that is public, the statement the application has not been adequately assessed is meaningless.
The Council has sought to ensure the planning framework for Barwell and Earl Shilton has been developed. This is why they feature in the adopted Core Strategy and consultation draft of the AAP. It is the County's insistence to the use of its LLITM Transport Model, and their complex procurement arrangements for this work, that are the key reasons for delay in the AAP. It is not necessary for the AAP to be adopted prior to determination of the Barwell SUE. The formal process for adoption of the AAP through to examination and receiving the Inspector's decision is likely to take up to eighteen months. It is unrealistic to expect to delay consideration of the application and delivery of new homes and the regeneration benefits for Barwell for that length of time. This also falls well outside Government guidelines which it has given to its own Planning Inspectors for dealing with such applications, ie within a twelve-month period.
At no point previously in the lengthy consideration of the Barwell application and emerging plans for Earl Shilton has the County Council raised any substantive planning objections to the detail or principle of the scheme.
I would remind Cllr Bessant that the County supported Lubbesthorpe SUE in Blaby which did not have the benefit of either an adopted Core Strategy or AAP in place. On this basis I find it astonishing and very disappointing that they have expressed the views in the way they have.”
(d) Question from Councillor O’Shea addressed to the Leader of the Council
“In light of the disturbing reports that this Authority is considering ways of restricting public involvement in the proposed Barwell SUE application, can the leader please confirm that the 'usual' commitment to openness and transparency in the planning process will not, in the case of the SUE application, be sacrificed in order to spare the Administration's political blushes?”
Response from Councillor Bray
“The Council has had extensive consultation on the Barwell SUE application and continues to do so. It is nonsense to suggest we are considering restricting public involvement. “
(e) Question from Councillor Moore addressed to the Leader of the Council
“Paragraph 4.12 of the Core Strategy requires the Council to have an alternative strategy for the Borough housing supply should the Barwell SUE fail to deliver the necessary housing requirements. Given the timetable for delivering units is already significantly behind schedule, the consequences of further delay would have serious implications for the Council to demonstrate a 5 year housing supply. Could the leader of the council please advise members on the status of the alternative strategy and what the preferred option is that will prevent the Council losing future planning appeals because of the lack of 5 year housing supply? “
Response from Councillor Bray
“I would like to thank Cllr Moore for his question.
I can confirm the Council has a five year housing supply which is predicted on the Barwell SUE coming forward – as it is identified as a commitment within the Core Strategy.
The programme for delivery of units was presented at the Examination into the Core Strategy. The Inspector at this Examination accepted that there would be a time lag during the early part of the Plan Period, acknowledging it would take time for the SUE’s to come forward. This view was more recently echoed by the Inspector into the Ratby Appeal.
The Strategy for ensuring that we continue to meet the five year housing land requirement is to continue to make effective progress on delivering the two SUE’s at Barwell and Earl Shilton and the emerging Site Allocations document.”
Minutes:
(a) Question from Councillor Batty addressed to the Leader of the Council
“Is the Leader of the Council aware of the inadequate level of consultation carried out by this Council with local communities in respect of Wind Turbine applications and that the same principle is being applied as for normal built development.
Does the Leader of the Council believe that posting notices on gates at the entrance to fields in the middle of nowhere and the sending of a small number of neighbour consultation letters to residents within a relatively close radius of the application site is an adequate level of public consultation in respect of "sensitive" applications that could impact on the amenity value enjoyed by hundreds if not thousands of people.
Will the Leader agree with me that in such instances whilst the Council may not have a legal obligation to prominently advertise such applications to encourage full public engagement in the planning process, the Council certainly does have a moral obligation and duty of care in the interest of openness and transparency to do so?
Finally, will the Leader agree that officers should in future engage with local members on such applications to ensure that the views of communities have been taken fully into account and that as a matter of Council policy all Wind Turbine applications should be determined by the Council's planning committee.”
Response from Councillor Mayne, Chairman of the Planning Committee
“I would like to thank Councillor Batty for his question.
I’m assuming that Councillor Batty is making specific reference to the application on Land North of Anstey Lane close to Groby.
In that particular case the application was determined in accordance with the Constitution. There is no record of a Council Member calling the matter to Planning Committee, although I understand the Chief Executive is checking why an e-mail sent by you was not received.
In respect of the number of representations received this was below the five required to automatically require the application to be determined by Planning Committee.
Representations were also received from both Charnwood and Blaby Councils, neither of whom objected to the proposal.
The regulations governing the advertising of planning applications are set out in the Development Management Procedure Order 2010.
In respect of a minor application, which this was, the Local Planning Authority must either display a site notice on or near the land to which the application relates or serve notice on any adjoining owner or occupier.
The application that Cllr Batty is specifically concerned about was publicised in accordance with the regulations.
I would accept that there may well be occasions where there needs to be additional consultation over and above the statutory requirements, and there are occasions where that is carried out.
I would also agree that Members and Officers should work constructively together and given that Members are advised in writing on a weekly basis of applications within their ward there is nothing stopping them being proactive and contacting officers directly to discuss any relevant matters.
If Councillor Batty wants all wind turbines to be determined before Planning Committee then that will require a change to the Constitution.”
As a supplementary question, Councillor Batty asked about minimum distances. Councillor Mayne felt that this did not constitute a supplementary question and agreed to respond separately.
(b) Question from Councillor Bessant addressed to the Leader of the Council
“Could the leader of the council please advise members when his Administration aims to adopt the Area Action Plan in relation to the proposed Barwell SUE, in order to secure the proper planning of the area, and avoid the risk of the Barwell SUE being developed in isolation?”
Response from Councillor Bray
“Cllr Bessant - Thank you for your question. I can confirm that the Area Action Plan (AAP) for Barwell and Earl Shilton was first published for consultation in January 2011. The final draft version for adoption will be informed by the extensive technical work that has been carried out in connection with the Barwell Planning Application. Whilst the AAP is at an advanced stage, it can only be completed once the County Council has completed its highway modelling work assessing the impacts of both SUEs. This work has been considerably delayed, but I have been assured by officers that LCC are committing to conclude this work by 1 March 2013.
I would remind you that the adopted Local Plan Core Strategy is the key strategic document guiding the development of growth and the SUEs in the Borough. By having this plan in place, it mitigates any risk of the Barwell SUE being developed in isolation. I would reiterate that technical work for the AAP, which is at an advanced stage, has informed this application for Barwell SUE. Senior officers of the County Council have worked extensively with our officers on a range of key requirements, including transport modelling and impact, educational requirements, community facilities and libraries.”
As a supplementary question, Councillor Bessant asked if there was a target date for approving the Area Action Plan. In response, the Leader stated that there was not.
(c) Question from Councillor Bessant addressed to the Leader of the Council
“Could the leader of the council please advise Members of the status of his Administration’s proposed Earl Shilton SUE, especially in light of the recent County Council Decision that they could not support the proposed Barwell SUE because,
i) The County Council had previously stated that the two SUEs needed to be planned and delivered together;
ii) The two SUES have not been planned together and an Area Action Plan, to which any proposed development should conform, has not been concluded and adopted; and
iii) The County Council believes the Barwell SUE proposal has not been adequately assessed by the Borough Council and cannot be supported.”
Response from Councillor Bray
“Earl Shilton SUE is featured in the adopted Local Plan Core Strategy.
The formal response recently received from the County Council is astonishing, given the extensive joint work that County officers have supported over the Area Action Plan (AAP) and Barwell and Earl Shilton SUEs. In fact, the County Council has been leading on the delivery of transport modelling work and on community facilities studies in connection with both SUEs.
The report to the Borough Council’s Planning Committee will include an assessment of the application. Until that is public, the statement the application has not been adequately assessed is meaningless.
The Council has sought to ensure the planning framework for Barwell and Earl Shilton has been developed. This is why they feature in the adopted Core Strategy and consultation draft of the AAP. It is the County's insistence to the use of its LLITM Transport Model, and their complex procurement arrangements for this work, that are the key reasons for delay in the AAP. It is not necessary for the AAP to be adopted prior to determination of the Barwell SUE. The formal process for adoption of the AAP through to examination and receiving the Inspector's decision is likely to take up to eighteen months. It is unrealistic to expect to delay consideration of the application and delivery of new homes and the regeneration benefits for Barwell for that length of time. This also falls well outside Government guidelines which it has given to its own Planning Inspectors for dealing with such applications, ie within a twelve-month period.
At no point previously in the lengthy consideration of the Barwell application and emerging plans for Earl Shilton has the County Council raised any substantive planning objections to the detail or principle of the scheme.
I would remind Cllr Bessant that the County supported Lubbesthorpe SUE in Blaby which did not have the benefit of either an adopted Core Strategy or AAP in place. On this basis I find it astonishing and very disappointing that they have expressed the views in the way they have.”
By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Bessant asked if the authority would be open to legal challenge if the Area Action Plan had not been adopted by the time the SUEs were approved. In response the Leader stated that advice had been received that this wasn’t the case, and this was also the same situation in a neighbouring authority who had recently approved a SUE.
(d) Question from Councillor O’Shea addressed to the Leader of the Council
“In light of the disturbing reports that this Authority is considering ways of restricting public involvement in the proposed Barwell SUE application, can the leader please confirm that the 'usual' commitment to openness and transparency in the planning process will not, in the case of the SUE application, be sacrificed in order to spare the Administration's political blushes?”
Response from Councillor Bray
“The Council has had extensive consultation on the Barwell SUE application and continues to do so. It is nonsense to suggest we are considering restricting public involvement. “
As a supplementary question, Councillor O’Shea asked for confirmation that there would be unrestricted access to the meeting and that it would be the usual 6.30pm start time. In response the Leader confirmed that 60 people would be allowed in the gallery in line with fire regulations but that the meeting would also be webcast. It was reported that a cross-party group had agreed at 6pm start. It was also explained that the provision for public speaking would be extended to allow more speakers than usual due to the public interest in the matter.
(e) Question from Councillor Moore addressed to the Leader of the Council
“Paragraph 4.12 of the Core Strategy requires the Council to have an alternative strategy for the Borough housing supply should the Barwell SUE fail to deliver the necessary housing requirements. Given the timetable for delivering units is already significantly behind schedule, the consequences of further delay would have serious implications for the Council to demonstrate a 5 year housing supply. Could the leader of the council please advise members on the status of the alternative strategy and what the preferred option is that will prevent the Council losing future planning appeals because of the lack of 5 year housing supply? “
Response from Councillor Bray
“I would like to thank Cllr Moore for his question.
I can confirm the Council has a five year housing supply which is predicted on the Barwell SUE coming forward – as it is identified as a commitment within the Core Strategy.
The programme for delivery of units was presented at the Examination into the Core Strategy. The Inspector at this Examination accepted that there would be a time lag during the early part of the Plan Period, acknowledging it would take time for the SUE’s to come forward. This view was more recently echoed by the Inspector into the Ratby Appeal.
The Strategy for ensuring that we continue to meet the five year housing land requirement is to continue to make effective progress on delivering the two SUE’s at Barwell and Earl Shilton and the emerging Site Allocations document.”
Councillor Moore referred to the part of his question about an alternative strategy and felt that this hadn’t been answered. In response, the Leader explained that an alternative would not be required.