Issue - meetings

To seek approval of the content of the draft Land Availability Assessment Methodology and its approval for public engagement for a period of six weeks.

Executive Councillor: T Sanderson.

With the aid of a report by the Chief Planning Officer (a copy of which is appended in the Minute Book) the Cabinet were presented with the content of the Land Availability Assessment (LAA) Methodology and its approval for public engagement for a period of six week’s following the Cabinet’s meeting and the call-in period.

Following a brief introduction by the Executive Councillor for Planning who reported that the Land Availability Assessment set out a clear methodology by which to assess potential development sites and provide a consistent way in which to assess their suitability, availability, achievability, deliverability and potential capacity and in receiving and noting the views of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel (Performance & Growth), in particular the comments which had been made in respect of windfall sites, it was

RESOLVED

(a)  to approve the contents of the draft Land Availability Assessment Methodology; and

(b)  to agree that the draft Land Availability Assessment Methodology be published for public engagement for a period of six weeks following the Cabinet’s meeting and the call-in period.

The Panel is invited to comment on the Draft Land Availability Assessment Methodology report.

By means of a report by the Chief Planning Officer (a copy of which was appended in the Minute Book) the Draft Land Availability Assessment Methodology Report was presented to the Panel.

Following observations from Councillor Gray, the Panel heard that an update to the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment 2017 in the form of Integrated Water Management Studies was underway which would address all aspects of flooding from recent years including surface water run-off from new developments.

The Panel heard, after a further question from Councillor Gray, that the approach to windfall sites had changed. The team were currently using available data for sites of less than 10 houses to formulate predictions for the future. It was acknowledged that this wording would be adapted to clarify the windfall definition and the methodology.

Councillor Wells queried why recently refused applications appeared in the list of sites to review at 2.10 in the report. The Panel heard that under the methodology, current planning policy cannot be taken into account, therefore these sites would be reviewed however may be refused again in the future once the planning policy has been reapplied.

It was thereupon

RESOLVED

that the comments of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel be passed to Cabinet for their consideration when making a decision upon the recommendations contained within the report.