1 The Highland Council Agenda 9. Item Sutherland County Committee Report CC/ Caithness Committee No 16/16 30 August 2016 31 August 2016 Caithness and Sutherland Local Development Plan Report by Director of Development and Infrastructure Summary This report presents a summary of issues raised in comments received on the Proposed Caithness and Sutherland Local Development Plan (CaSPlan) and seeks approval for the Council’s response to these issues and next steps. In accordance with the Council’s Scheme of Delegation, the two Local Committees are asked to consider the report and decide on these matters. The recommended Council position is to defend the Proposed Plan, subject to only minor modifications, which would mean that the next stage would be submission to Ministers and progression to Examination. Other options would involve further consultation on a Modified Plan. The report explains the implications of each way forward. 1. Background 1.1 The Caithness and Sutherland Local Development Plan (CaSPlan) is the second of three area local development plans to be prepared by the Highland Council. Together with the Highland-wide Local Development Plan (HwLDP) and more detailed Supplementary Guidance, CaSPlan will form part of the Council’s Development Plan against which planning decisions will be made in the Caithness and Sutherland area. 1.2 The Proposed Plan consultation for CaSPlan ran from 22 January to 18 March 2016. Around 201 organisations or individuals responded, raising around 636 comments. This includes a few comments received on the associated Proposed Action Programme. All these comments have been published on the development plans consultation portal consult.highland.gov.uk. The following two matters are drawn to the attention of Members: the portal indicates a response date for some comments which is after the close of consultation; however, all the comments seen on the portal were received on time and the dates displayed are a consequence of administrative processes that the Council has had to undertake after the close of consultation; and on the portal, some comments on specific sites appear against the general settlement text rather than the specific sites; however the site reference number is given in each instance and future consultations on 2 plans will be designed such that this issue does not re-occur. 1.3 Additionally there was one late representation received, from HiTrans which is a Key Agency in the development plan process. This has been included in Appendix A to this report, under the Connectivity and Transport issue, and the Local Committees are asked to agree to take the comments of HiTrans into consideration and to ask the Reporter(s) holding the subsequent Examination to likewise consider them. Any other correspondence received from any party has not been registered as representations but referred to where appropriate and relevant in our consideration of the issues raised in representations. 1.4 Some comments are classified as objections because they either clearly state or imply that they seek modifications to particular parts of the Proposed Plan. There are other comments that are clearly in support of particular parts of the Proposed Plan. Appendix A (which is available on the Council’s website, in the Members’ Library and at Caithness House and Drummuie) sets out a full summary of the issues raised during the consultation, including any modifications that were sought to the Plan by those who commented, and officers’ recommended response. In accordance with the Council’s Scheme of Delegation (as amended in May 2016) it is now for the two Local Committees to consider the issues and agree the Council’s response. Each Local Committee is asked to consider the general issues for the Plan as well as the issues, settlements and sites directly within their area. 1.5 Appendix B (attached) provides an extract of Scottish Government’s Planning Circular 6/2013: Development Planning, which explains the plan-making process including aspects that are covered by statute as well as good practice and Scottish Government expectations. In considering the issues for CaSPlan and taking account of the Circular, officers have borne in mind that there are a number of types of decision that could be made: defending the Proposed Plan: if we do nevertheless see merit in a representation we may say so in our response, whilst defending that part of the Proposed Plan, and we would leave the Reporter(s) holding the Examination to make appropriate recommendations; making non-notifiable modifications (i.e. only minor modifications such as minor wording or typographical changes, not significant modifications); or making notifiable modifications (i.e. those that add, remove or significantly alter any policy or proposal in the plan); notifiable modifications trigger a requirement for further consultation before proceeding with the Plan. 1.6 Bearing in mind that there are a number of issues to consider, in its entirety the Council’s response could involve some or all of these decision types. It should be noted that if any notifiable modifications are agreed by either Local Committee this would trigger further consultation on the whole of the Modified Plan, not just the Modifications. In preparing any such Modified Plan, we would also need to prepare for publication alongside it an addendum to the Revised 3 Environmental Report and, if the proposed modifications changed the Plan’s housing land provisions, an update to the Housing Background Paper. 2. Proposed Plan Preparation and Consultation Processes 2.1 In May 2015 the single predecessor Caithness and Sutherland Area Committee received a report on the results of consultation on the Main Issues Report and agreed an Interim Position on the issues. In line with that Interim Position, officers then prepared the Proposed Plan which was considered and approved for consultation by the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee on 4 November 2015. Scottish Ministers expect the Proposed Plan to represent the planning authority’s settled view as to what the final adopted content of the plan should be. 2.2 During the Proposed Plan consultation a number of external parties raised concerns that they felt that the length of consultation and/or publicity of it was insufficient. Some also expressed concern about the emphasis the Council was placing on use of its consultation portal for the submission of comments. 2.3 The period of consultation on the Proposed Plan was 8 weeks, which exceeded the statutory minimum of 6 weeks for Local Development Plans. All statutory requirements for the consultation were met, and in some cases exceeded, in terms of making the document available and public advertising and direct notifying of the consultation. Additionally, members of the team attended Community Council training events to help raise awareness of the consultation amongst Community Council representatives and how to take part. This was particularly valuable given Community Council elections held within the immediate run-up to the consultation. 2.4 With regard to the use of our online consultation portal, we have been keen to encourage people to submit comments by that method if they can, given the benefits for customers and the Council. Around 84% of comments on the Proposed Plan were submitted using the online portal. Members of the team provided advice to customers who contacted us for assistance in using the portal, often resulting in online submissions. For those who were unable to submit comments using it, we provided alternative methods of submission. Any comments not received via the portal have subsequently been entered onto the portal by officers. 3. Highlights of the Issues 3.1 Appendix A (which is available on the Council’s website, in the Members’ Library and at Caithness House and Drummuie) contains full details of the recommended Council position on all of the issues raised on the Proposed Plan, including reasons for the recommendations, that need to be considered and agreed by the Local Committees. It will be the Reporter(s) who hold the independent Examination who will make final decisions on the issues. The following are highlights only (Community Council comments are highlighted in bold): 4 Vision and Strategy Vision – General support for this section. Several suggestions to provide more detail in the outcomes, however recommend against this as all four outcomes must be read together and alongside the rest of the Proposed Plan. Spatial Strategy – Recommend continuing to show National Cycle Route 1 on the Strategy map as it is, rather than identifying it as a sustainable/green travel tourism route as suggested by Ardgay and District Community Council. Settlements to which the Policy 3: Growing Settlements will apply – Recommend against the suggestions from Laid Grazings and Community Committee and Bower Community Council that Laid and Bower respectively be identified as additional Growing Settlements within the Plan (or that Bower be identified as a Settlement Development Area), as it is considered that general policies within the Highland-wide Local Development Plan and associated Supplementary Guidance provide a suitable and flexible framework within which to support appropriate developments within these dispersed settlements that have relatively low pressure for development. Housing Land Supply – Whilst the generous amount of housing allocations is noted the housing land supply is suitable and justified and assisted by the phasing of larger sites and the identification of longer term sites. Employment – Despite comments suggesting otherwise, the strategy set out in the Plan is considered to provide the best prospects for future economic growth of the area. Environment and Heritage - General support for this section. Recommend against the requests to designate new SLAs, amend Wild Land Area 35 and extend Kyle of Tongue NSA, as such actions are outwith CaSPlan’s remit. Connectivity and Transport - Recommended to include additional text noting potential for increased pressure on the road network as a key challenge in rural areas.