Agenda item

Report of Head of JPU (Copy attached)

The Chair noted that the production of a Joint Core Strategy (JCS) had reached an important milestone; work on it had first commenced in 2005 and that the partner authorities had worked tirelessly to bring it forward as quickly as possible bearing in mind compliance with the legal framework. The headlines were that the housing numbers would be reduced as compared with the RSS (Regional Spatial Strategy) but employment figures had been kept at a high level.

Councillors Kay Driver and Stephen Clarke commented that they were pleased that this point had now been reached in the process. It was important that the Joint Core Strategy was adopted for each of the partner Councils to be able to better manage development in their areas. 

The Head of the JPU:

·         submitted a report that considered the general conformity and consistency between the Regional Strategy for the East Midlands and the Joint Core Strategy;

·         provided an Addendum to the Summary of the Main Issues Raised by the Representations to the Pre-Submission Joint Core Strategy and the Joint Planning Unit’s Response to the Representations;

·         provided a summary of the Proposed Changes to the Pre-Submission Joint Core Strategy representations stage;

·         provided a quantitative analysis of the representations received to the Proposed Changes to the Pre-Submission version of the Joint Core Strategy;

·         provided a factually based summary of the main issues raised by the representations to the Proposed Changes to the Pre-Submission version of the Joint Core Strategy;

·         confirmed what action, if any, needed to be taken on the representations received to the Proposed Changes to the Pre-Submission version of the Joint Core Strategy;

·         sought approval to submit the Joint Core Strategy and its supporting documents to the Secretary of State for Examination ; and

·         sought agreement to the process that will operate across the partnership should minor modifications to the Joint Core Strategy arise or be suggested during the Public Examination process.

The Head of the JPU noted that it was an important step for the Joint Core Strategy to be submitted to the Secretary of State for Examination. It was likely that the public examination would take place during the Spring or Summer of 2013. He emphasised paragraph 1.1 of the report and highlighted the evaluation planning assessment that had been undertaken and associated planning judgement based conclusion that the JCS was in general conformity with the RSS: there was a risk because of the reduction in housing numbers but challenges to it were part of the process and the JPU were geared up to be able to react to them. Importantly, the JCS had to be achievable and deliverable.

The Head of the JPU noted that the JCS at the point of submission had to be in general conformity with the RSS as it still existed, but if the RSS was subsequently rescinded during examination the JCS would need to be consistent with the NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework). The planning  judgement based conclusion was that the JSC would meet the objectively assessed housing needs and other requirements of the NPPF and therefore was consistent with it. The RSS housing figures had been partly based on West Northamptonshire being a growth area. The JCS housing figures recognised the need for some growth and at a level that was achievable in the current economic climate. In short, the JCS was considered to be both in general conformity with the RSS and consistent with the NPPF.

In answer to a question, the Head of the JPU commented that whilst submission of the JCS would not stop speculative applications from developers absolutely, the fact that it had been submitted would give the JCS as a whole more weight, and those policies within it that had not been challenged would have even greater weight. Therefore, it would be more difficult for a speculative application to succeed. 

The Head of the JPU made reference to other sections of the report as follows:

·         he noted that paragraph 5.1 and the Appendix provided the response to the comments raised by Peter Hawkins on behalf of the Great Houghton Action Group. It was considered that adequate protection was given to the Nene Ridge bearing in mind that the JCS was a strategic plan. The existing skylines policy in the existing Northampton Borough Local Plan would remain in place until the JCS was adopted.

·         He highlighted Section 6 and clarified that minor updates meant correcting any factual errors, typos etc.

·         He highlighted Section 7 and commented that the majority of representations had come from the development industry:  summarised the main representations in the context of significant and minor changes proposed to the Pre-submission JCS that were detailed in Appendix 4. It had been concluded that no new issues had been raised by the representations and therefore no further action was required in submitting the JCS to the Secretary of State.

·         He noted in Section 8 that all documents would be submitted to the Secretary of State on 31 December 2012 and elaborated on the next stages set out in the Section.

      The Chair thanked both Officers and Members for their agreement to a joint approach and to the goodwill on all sides that had allowed this to happen. Councillor John Townsend observed that the relatively few queries members had was due to the longstanding practice of involving them and keeping them informed throughout the process which had greatly reduced the likelihood of outstanding matters.

Councillor Kay Driver proposed and Councillor Stephen Clarke seconded “That the recommendations set out in paragraph 2.1 of the report be approved.”

RESOLVED:       1.       That it be confirmed that, following the completion of the evaluation assessment that had led to a planning judgement based conclusion, the Joint Core Strategy was in general conformity with and was consistent with the East Midlands Regional Strategy (Assessment attached as Appendix 1 to the report);

                             2.     That the Addendum to the Summary of the Main Issues Raised by the Representations to the Pre-Submission Joint Core Strategy and the Joint Planning Unit’s Response to the Representations (Attached as Appendix 2 to the report) be noted;

                            3.       That the summary of the Proposed Changes to the Pre-Submission Joint Core Strategy representations stage (Regulations 19 and 20) including the requirements of the Regulations and how these have been met (Attached as part of Appendix 3 to the report) be noted;

                            4.       That the quantitative analysis of the representations received to the Proposed Changes to the Pre-Submission version of the Joint Core Strategy (Attached as part of Appendix 3 to the report) be noted;

                            5.      That the factually based summary of the main issues raised by the representations to the Proposed Changes to the Pre-Submission version of the Joint Core Strategy (Attached as Appendix 4 to the report) be noted;

                            6.      That no further action be taken in response to the representations received to the Proposed Changes to the Pre-Submission version of the Joint Core Strategy;

                            7.       That approval be given to the submission of the Joint Core Strategy and its supporting documents to the Secretary of State for Examination as the Strategy was considered to be in general conformity with and consistent with the Regional Strategy and in accordance with Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012; and

                                  8.       That post Submission, should modifications of a minor nature arise during the Public Examination, the Head of the Joint Planning Unit be delegated authority to raise them with relevant partner Council Director(s) for them to raise with relevant senior Councillors in the Partnership: following consultation with the Chair of the Joint Strategic Planning Committee, the response would then be fed back by the Head of the Joint Planning Unit into the Public Examination.