13
The Council received report ES/0362 from the Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management. Councillor Ritchie stated that the Suffolk Coastal Local Plan was being presented to Full Council, following a thorough process of preparation which had taken place since 2016. This had involved a number of public consultations and the careful consideration of evidence, followed by an Examination from an independent Government Inspector who had concluded that, with modifications, the Plan was legally compliant and sound and could proceed to adoption. The adoption of the Plan had been debated at the Extraordinary meeting of the Council’s Cabinet on 17 September2020, and following the debate, Cabinet had recommended to Full Council that the Plan be adopted.
The Local Plan was therefore now presented to Full Council for adoption.
Councillor Ritchie clarified that the Suffolk Coastal Local Plan covered the former Suffolk Coastal district and set out the strategy for growth and development over the period 2018-2036. Once adopted, the Plan would guide decisions on planning applications within that area. The Plan would sit alongside the Waveney Local Plan which had been adopted in March 2019, and the Local Plan for the Broads (prepared by the Broads Authority) which was adopted in May 2019, together providing up to date plans across the whole of East Suffolk. There were in addition, 7 ‘made’ Neighbourhood Plans in the former Suffolk Coastal area and a number of others under preparation.
Councillor Ritchie then updated Members on the work undertaken during the creation of the Local Plan, since 2016.
Councillor Ritchie explained the process in that an independent Inspector was appointed to examine the Plan, to consider whether it was legally compliant and sound. Public hearings were held during August and September 2019, and subsequently the Inspector published his post-hearings letter in January 2020. That led to consultation on Main Modifications, held for ten weeks between May and July 2020, and following consideration of the responses received the Inspector published his final report on 8 September 2020. That report concluded that the Plan was legally compliant and sound, subject to a number of Main Modifications being made, and could be adopted. The Plan, with the modifications incorporated, was being presented to Council for adoption.
Councillor Ritchie reported that the Local Plan set out an ambitious vision, which aligned with the vision for the Council, and contained aspirations to ensure a diverse, strong and prosperous economy; provision of sufficient homes of the right types and tenures to meet needs, including addressing needs for younger and older people; active and healthy communities; protecting, maintaining and enhancing the high quality, built historic and natural environment; and mitigating and adapting to climate change.
It was noted that spatially, the Local Plan sought to deliver two new Garden Neighbourhoods (at North Felixstowe and South Saxmundham) and new employment growth based around key transport corridors, strategies for market towns to reflect and strengthen their roles and appropriate growth in rural areas, including through site allocations, to sustain existing communities.
The North Felixstowe Garden Neighbourhood was identified as a leisure led development which would comprise a new leisure centre, green infrastructure, community facilities and employment land alongside residential development of up to 2,000 homes. It was recognised that the integration with the existing community would be critical to its success and the garden neighbourhood would be expected to come forward through a master-planned approach informed by community engagement.
The South Saxmundham Garden Neighbourhood provided an opportunity for new primary school provision, green infrastructure, recreational facilities and other community facilities, in addition to approximately 800 homes and employment land. It was noted that, as with North Felixstowe, the garden neighbourhood was expected to come forward through a master-planned approach, informed by community engagement. Whilst alternative options around Saxmundham had been considered throughout the production of the Plan, bringing the development forward on one site was considered to provide benefits in relation to the comprehensive delivery of the development and infrastructure.
Councillor Ritchie stated that, in order to provide confidence in maintaining sufficient housing supply, should any sites not come forward or be delayed, the amount of housing planned for included a contingency of around 25% (including an allowance for some development to come forward as windfall, in accordance with other policies in the Plan).
Councillor Ritchie stated that the Local Plan also set out a number of topic based policies for use in determining planning applications, including in relation to economic uses, housing (including Gypsies and Travellers), tourism, transport, community facilities and assets, climate change and coastal change, the natural environment, the build and historic environment and infrastructure.
Councillor Ritchie reported that following publication of the Inspector’s Report, a significant amount of correspondence had been received in relation to the housing allocation at Land West of Chapel Road, Grundisburgh (Policy SCLP12.51). It was noted that the matters raised had been considered by the Inspector in arriving at his conclusions on the Local Plan. The representations received on the Final Draft Local Plan and on the Main Modifications were all available to view on the Council’s website.
It was noted that correspondence had also been received in relation to the housing allocation at Land adjacent to the Farthings, Peasenhall (Policy SCLP12.59), in particular, raising matters around the site not being available for development. It was clarified that the site would only come forward for development should the landowners bring it forward. It was noted that the Plan contained a contingency by planning for a number above the housing requirement, to acknowledge that some sites may be delayed or not come forward.
Councillor Ritchie advised that the final Local Plan was contained in Appendix C to this report. The final Local Plan incorporated all of the Inspector’s Main Modifications, noting that all of the Inspector’s conclusions must be taken on board. The adoption of the Local Plan was imperative in ensuring a plan-led approach to development and provided certainty to communities as to where development could come forward. Having an up to date plan in place provided a clear policy framework for facilitating economic growth and delivering housing to meet identified needs. The importance of having a Plan in place was further emphasised in relation to the current pandemic and ensuring a positive and planned approach was in place to support economic recovery. Councillor Ritchie took the opportunity to thank the Planning Officers involved in the development of this Local Plan and then he moved the recommendations contained within the report, which were then seconded by Councillor Gee.
The Chairman then invited questions.
The Leader stated that he would like to reserve his right to speak.
Councillor Hedgley commented that he would support the recommendations, as he felt that it would be a serious misstep not to do so, as it would leave the Suffolk Coastal area vulnerable. Although he had concerns about some elements of the Suffolk Coastal Local Plan, he was reassured that any applications would need to be brought before the Planning Committee South for consideration and the Committee would ensure that any development proposals were appropriate for the local area. He then thanked the Planning Officers for all of their hard work in respect of this Local Plan.
Councillor Deacon stated that he had raised concerns throughout the process of developing this plan. He felt that brownfield sites should always be used prior to developing greenfield sites and that development should be shared across the whole area, not just focussed in a few places. He felt that some villages needed development and others did not, and that any development needed to be appropriate to its location. There was a need for more housing to help the younger generations stay in the area, however Councillor Deacon was particularly concerned that 4,000 new homes were planned for Felixstowe, which would cause a population increase of around 8,000, which would have a significant impact on the population, which was currently 28,000. He was also concerned about the impact to agricultural land, as the UK might need to grow more crops for food in future, due to the impacts of Covid-19 and also Brexit.
Councillor Deacon also stated that the number of houses within the Local Plan had been based upon anticipated need and circumstances had changed significantly in recent months. The Ipswich Northern Bypass scheme had been abandoned and the predicted growth from that scheme would not now take place. Also, due to Covid-19, 12,000 residents in the district had been furloughed and the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had stated that up to 50% of furloughed jobs could ultimately be lost. Therefore, he felt that the original estimations and data contained within the Local Plan needed to be reviewed, as many circumstances had changed significantly. Councillor Deacon asked that the recommendation within the report be amended and that the adoption of the Local Plan be paused, to allow for the data to be re-evaluated. He then stated that he would like to have a recorded vote for this item and he called for a seconder.
Councillor Ritchie raised a point of order. He stated that the Local Plan had been through all of the required stages and the only option for Full Council to consider at this meeting was whether to accept or reject the Local Plan. The Council was not able to amend the Local Plan, the version under consideration was the final version. If the Local Plan was rejected, the Council would need to start work again from the beginning of the process. The Local Plan could not be paused. Councillor Ritchie then invited Mrs Slater, the Monitoring Officer, to give her view on Councillor Deacon’s request.
Mrs Slater, the Monitoring Officer, confirmed that Councillor Ritchie was correct. The only option for the Council was to adopt or reject the Local Plan this evening. Any other proposals, such as to pause the adoption, would negate the recommendations within the report. Therefore, Councillors had to decide whether to adopt or reject the Local Plan under consideration.
Councillor Deacon reported that he was disappointed, as he did not feel that his proposal to pause would negate the recommendations contained within the report. He had only wanted some of the information upon which the Local Plan was based to be re-evaluated, due to the recent changes in circumstances. He stated that he felt very strongly about this matter and was very disappointed by the advice given with regard to the recommendations.
Councillor Smith-Lyte commented that she would be brief and would not reiterate the issues raised by Councillor Deacon. However, she was extremely concerned about the possibility of over development and the use of agricultural land for development. She felt that there was a real need to increase the amount of food produced in the UK, due to Covid-19 and Brexit, and also to reduce the amount of food miles.
Mr Ridley, Head of Planning and Coastal Management noted that Members had some concerns about the adoption of the Local Plan. However, the concerns raised by Members had already been considered and addressed by the Planning Inspector. Mr Ridley reported that the Council would be in a much stronger position if it had a Local Plan in place, as it would help to ensure that only good, high quality developments were allowed. All planning applications would still need to be considered by the Council and taken forward to the Planning Committees, as required. The Local Plan would protect the area and the Local Plan could be reviewed or updated when needed.
Councillor Kerry reported that he did have some concerns about the Local Plan, however he felt that additional homes were needed and there were currently over 500 people on the Council’s waiting list for housing. He felt that brownfield sites should be used first, rather than greenfield sites, such as Innocence Farm.
Councillor Burroughes reported that he was had some concerns about the sites for development in the Peasenhall area, however there would be mechanisms in place to address them. He felt that the Council would be vulnerable without having a Local Plan in place, so he was broadly supportive of this Local Plan.
Councillor Ashdown confirmed that he supported the Local Plan. He felt that as Chairman of Planning Committee North, the adoption of the Waveney Local Plan had made it easier when considering applications at Committee meetings.
Councillor Gooch felt that she was in a difficult position, as there had been a number of comments about concerns regarding the Local Plan. She also had concerns about the impacts of Covid-19 and Brexit upon the District, therefore she felt that it was a difficult choice to make.
Councillor Mallinder took the opportunity to thank Councillor Ritchie and Officers for all of their hard work in the creation of the Local Plan. He noted that the need to maintain a pleasant and healthy environment for future generations was a key theme throughout the Plan, therefore he was happy to support the recommendations within the report.
Councillor Byatt stated that he was in a quandary and fully understood the concerns of Councillor Deacon, as he was also unconvinced that so many homes were needed. He also had concerns about agricultural land being used for homes, when there might be issues about food security in the future, therefore he had some reservations about approving the Local Plan.
Councillor Elliott reported that the adoption of the Local Plan was a difficult decision. However, he had been a Member of the Local Plan Working Group for many years and he felt that should the Council not adopt the Local Plan, it would leave the area at greater risk. Without a Local Plan, applicants would be able to submit building applications across the whole of the area and there would be fewer substantive reasons that could be used to refuse those applications. He did raise concerns about how the need for housing was measured, as the Council was required to use the government’s formulae and he felt it would be better if Councils were able to measure and finalise their own housing need. He reiterated that the Council would be in a much safer position, if the Local Plan was adopted.
Councillor Yule stated that she did have some concerns, however planning applications would still need to be submitted in the same way. Therefore Councillors would still be able to have input into future developments to ensure the best outcomes for their Wards. She noted that some people may assume that all planning applications were approved without checks, however she reported that applications were robustly reviewed and considered, to ensure the best outcome for the District.
Councillor Deacon reported that Members were aware of and involved with the early stages of the development of the Local Plan, however nobody foresaw a world-wide pandemic or Brexit and these two issues alone had significantly changed the data upon which the Local Plan was based. He was very concerned that high quality agricultural land could be lost forever to build homes that people no longer needed or wanted. He felt that the Local Plan had been based upon out of date information, due to the recent impact of Covid-19 and Brexit and that the Local Plan should be paused and then the data could be reviewed.
The Leader reported that he was very fond of Felixstowe and had noted that more people commuted into the town than out of it, on a daily basis. Therefore, the proposed development of a garden neighbourhood would mean that more people would be able to live near their place of work, reducing congestion. It was natural that more housing was needed for a town that was the 4th largest in Suffolk and growth should be viewed as positive. However, there did need to be a balance regarding the use of land. The Leader noted that Councillor Deacon was disappointed by the way the discussions were heading. However, there was ultimately a single choice to be made, which was to adopt or reject the Local Plan, pausing the adoption was not an option that could be considered.
Councillor Kerry reported that over 500 people were on the Council's waiting list for housing and the Council had a duty to try and provide the housing that was required. He noted that there were significant dangers in not adopting the Local Plan. Having the Local Plan in place meant that the Council had more control over proposed development in the area and future applications would be considered thoroughly by the Planning Committees.
Councillor Ritchie commented that it would not be appropriate to delay the adoption of the Local Plan. He welcomed the fact that both the Conservative and Labour Groups had acknowledged that there was a housing crisis. He reported that the Council had no leeway in terms of the number of homes to be provided, due to the government’s formulae that had to be used. However, the Council would be very mindful of the land being used for the developments and the environment generally. Unfortunately, there was insufficient brownfield land on which to build additional housing, therefore some agricultural land would need to be used. Councillor Ritchie mentioned that many people were focussing upon planting more trees and while this was a positive step, some trees were being planted on agricultural land too, which added additional pressure to the amount of agricultural land available. He felt that there needed to be a balance between food production and housing and the Council would take great care in that respect. It was noted that there had been a 3 year detailed consultation process with all interested parties, including Natural England, regarding the Local Plan and the Council would have a difficult future if it did not adopt the Local Plan, as it would be harder to reject planning applications.
Mrs Slater, the Monitoring Officer, sought clarification from Councillor Deacon regarding his earlier request for a recorded vote. Councillor Deacon stated that following the earlier discussions, he wished to withdraw his request for a recorded vote.
Upon being put to the electronic vote, it was
RESOLVED
1. That the Suffolk Coastal Local Plan, as contained in Appendix C, be adopted.
2. That the Policies Map be updated to reflect the adopted Local Plan.
3. That necessary adoption statements be published, in accordance with the Town and Country Planning Act 2012 and the Statement of Community Involvement, where possible.
4. That the Temporary Suspension of Parts of the Statement of Community Involvement for Planning Policy Purposes – Adoption of the Suffolk Coastal Local Plan, as contained in Appendix D, be approved.