Agenda item

(copy attached)

The Interim Head of the JPU submitted a report and noted in paragraph 1.4 the references to “preferred strategy” should read “emerging strategy”.  She highlighted paragraph 1.17, Northamptonshire Strategic Employment Land Assessment and slippage, reported by the consultants contracted by NEL, and paragraph 1.20, West Northamptonshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, and ongoing discussion as to the need for primary research.  She informed Members that recent Counsel’s advice was that the evidence base generally speaking was robust.

Comment was noted that the CACI report on the West Northamptonshire Retail Study was now available online and was clear in its conclusions.

The Interim Head of the JPU referred to the key milestone of the programme set out in Appendix 1 of the report and the Chair referred to discussions at the Business Sub-Group in respect of the planned meeting of the Joint Committee on 2 June 2009 to consider for approval the emergent strategy for the sole purpose of public consultation.  The Business Sub-Group had concluded that as the report was to require approval for consultation only and so as to avoid any unecessary delay in the publication of the pre-submission Joint Core Strategy in November 2009 that the meeting on 2 June 2009 should go ahead.  The Interim Head of the JPU confirmed that the Joint Committee would be asked to approve an emerging strategy that would set out options and indicate preferred approaches as supported by the evidence base.  This would comply fully with requirements of Regulation 25.  It was also noted that two workshops would be held before the proposed meeting on 2 June for members to discuss and understand the criteria for the selection of strategic sites and the options for consideration.

Concern was expressed that agreeing a preferred approach to the locations of development growth even for the purpose of consultation was likely to be politically controversial.  Further concern was made that policy positions should not be perceived to have been agreed ahead of the County Council elections or for these matters to become a focus for electioneering.

The Director of Planning and Regeneration commented that any rescheduling of the Joint Committee meeting to a date after 2 June 2009 would have consequences for the Programme, and place at risk the delivery of the LDS timetable. Officers assured Members that they would seek to minimise any impact on the programme. The importance of good Member attendance at the arranged workshops and positive outcomes from those workshops before the next Joint Planning Committee meeting was even more critical. 

The Joint Planning Committee discussed the issues. Consequences and risks. A view was advanced by Councillor Church that the meeting on  2 June should go ahead as originally discussed at the Business Sub- Group. The majority of Members did not favour such an approach.

RESOLVED: That the proposed meeting of the Joint Planning Committee on 2 June 2009 be rescheduled to 25 June 2009 by virtue of the exceptional circumstances caused by the County Council elections on 4 June 2009.