Two minor amendments to the existing settlement boundary were proposed in this case.
Mr. Rogers, Ward Member, declared a personal and prejudicial interest as he had submitted an application for land in Carbrooke under the LDF.
Mr. Rogers added his strong concerns to those of Mr. Cowen about the current process for considering settlement boundaries. He considered there was a case to be made for the matter to go to judicial review.
No other representations were made.
Five minor amendments to the settlement boundary were proposed.
No representations were made and it was noted that none had been received from the Parish Council.
A correction to the report was made in column 2 on page 18 to read “Existing settlement boundary – Amend settlement boundary”.
Four minor amendments to the settlement boundary were proposed in this case.
Mr. F. Ulrich, Chairman of Griston Parish Council, stated that the Parish Council was very disappointed at the process of consultation. He said the Parish Council had not had the opportunity to consider the proposals and he was unable to speak as he had a submitted application in the LDF. He stated that the previous representations of the Parish Council had not been taken on board.
The Principal Planning Policy Officer outlined the Parish Council’s views previously given in relation to three sites.
Mr. Rogers, Ward Member, referred to land to the south of Thorp House. There were existing submitted planning applications for this land. He felt the applicants would be penalised if this land was taken out of the settlement boundary.
The Principal Planning Policy Officer explained that the existing settlement boundary formed part of the saved Local Plan policies contained within the new Core Strategy. Any existing planning application or applications submitted during this process will be considered. The position would change only if and when the final policy document was found sound and adopted, which was not expected to be until mid or late 2011.
The Chairman of the Task and Finish Group advised those present that they should not lose sight of the fact that this was the first stage of consultation in the process and members had the opportunity to put forward amendments to the proposals.
Mr. Cowen expressed concern at the apparent inconsistency in the approach being taken in the proposals. He was also not clear about whether the maps fully detailed areas with existing planning consents or where applications were under consideration. He felt no decisions could be made without such information.
The Chairman noted the point, stating that they could deal only with information as presented.
The Principal Planning Policy Officer explained that the maps did show all sites with planning permission but it would be unreasonable to show sites that were the subject of an application which had yet to be determined.
Mr. Cowen replied that this excluded currently submitted applications or those applications presently the subject of appeal. He felt these needed to be shown on the plans. Without this, he felt it left the matter open to judicial review.
A member asked if the Chairman of the Parish Council was content with the information presented in respect of Griston. Mr. Ulrich replied no.
It was proposed that the meeting adjourn to enable Mr. Ulrich to consult with his Ward Member.
The Senior Planning Policy Officer advised that it was difficult to take into account planning applications yet to be determined. The maps, however, did reflect those areas where planning applications had been approved and/or implemented.
Attention was drawn to Core Policy CP14 in relation to the scale of sites in the rural areas, which excluded developments of sites for more than 5 dwellings.
It was reiterated that this was a first recommendation to members at this stage.
The Principal Planning Policy Officer added that policy CP14 sets out the broad parameters for settlement boundary reviews, which allowed for sites for up to five dwellings, and which was used to inform the process.
A member referred back to the proposed alignment of the boundary at Thorp House. He felt this would unduly curb future expansion of this care home, bearing in mind the current pressures on such services to meet demand.
In noting the concerns being raised, a member stressed the point that this was a scrutiny process of the recommendations being put forward. It was the first stage only in the process and views should not be too judgemental at this point.
The proposal in this case was to remove the existing settlement boundary.
Mr. Rumbsy, Chairman of the Parish Council, asked if this would preclude any development at all in the future.
It was explained that the removal of the settlement boundary would limit the possibility of further open market private housing but it would not rule out normal domestic housing extensions, garages, conservatories, etc.
In answer to a further question, it was confirmed that the removal of the settlement boundary would preclude further new development along the main road.
Mr. Rumbsy also stated that, although the Parish Council had not had time to meet to consider the proposals, he felt they were likely to be acceptable to his members.
With regard to the Crown Green area, Mr. Rumbsy advised that this was an open space and children’s play area which he felt should be marked as such on the map.
The meeting adjourned briefly at this point to enable the Griston Parish Council representative and Ward Member to consult on the proposals for that village.
Mr. Rogers, Ward Member, advised that the Parish Council had concerns about the omission of existing planning application development sites on the map, as it was understood there were some 30 application sites not indicated on the map. Applicants would be concerned that their sites were not being included.
The Principal Planning Policy Officer explained that no proposed additions were being recommended for inclusion and confirmed that there was existing information from the 2008 public consultation.
The Ward Member asked if there would be a further opportunity for parishes not present today to make representations, or whether they would have to wait until the formal public consultation period or make an appeal to the Inspector at the public examination.
It was explained that the key period for representations was the six week public consultation scheduled for April 2010. Paper copies of the proposals would be issued with accompanying forms for replies to be made.
It was reiterated that this meeting was a first stage in the process and that the report and findings from the Task and Finish Group would go forward for consideration by the Overview and Scrutiny Commission and thence to the Cabinet for consideration and approval, prior to public consultation.
Parishes and interested parties were urged to ensure they responded to the public consultation in April.
Mr. Rogers stated there were thoughts in parishes to consider applying for judicial review and asked when this could be done.
The Principal Planning Policy Officer explained that he understood cases for judicial review related to the reasonableness of the timing of decisions, which in this case would be the Cabinet decision. It was understood the period for review could range between six weeks and six months.
The amendment under GRI.4 was not supported and it was proposed that the existing boundary in that location be retained as a reasonable alternative.
CONCLUSIONS – TEMPLAR WARD
Carbrooke – Support proposed amendments to settlement boundary as recommended.
Support proposed amendments to settlement boundary as
Griston - Support
proposed amendments to settlement boundary - GRI.1, GRI.2, and
GRI.3 – as recommended.
Propose to retain the existing settlement boundary in the case of GRI.4, contrary to the recommendation.
Ovington - Support deletion of existing settlement boundary as recommended.