Agenda Item No: North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Committee Meeting [NNJPC] Minutes: 20 January 2011 Council Chamber, East Northamptonshire Council (Meeting held in public) Present for all or part of the meeting:- Councillor Graham Lawman, Borough Council of Wellingborough Councillor Eloise Lucille, East Northamptonshire Council Councillor Steven North, East Northamptonshire Council Councillor Chris Stanbra, Northamptonshire County Council Councillor Michael Tebbutt, Kettering Borough Council Councillor Geoff Timms, Borough Council of Wellingborough Councillor Malcolm Waters, Northamptonshire County Council (Chairman) Also present: Paul Hanson Northamptonshire County Council (minutes) Karen Gadomski Principal Planner, North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit Councillor Christopher Groome Kettering Borough Council Dr Tom Kelly Member of the public Andrew Longley Planning Manager, North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit Trevor Watson East Northamptonshire Council James Wilson Borough Council of Wellingborough Simon Richardson Kettering Borough Council There was one other also in attendance. 01/11 Apologies and non-attendance Apologies for absence were received from Councillor George Blackwell, Borough Council of Wellingborough, Councillor David Brackenbury, East Northamptonshire Council, Councillor Mark Pengelly, Corby Borough Council, Councillor Bob Seery, Northamptonshire County Council and Councillor Alison Wiley, Kettering Borough Council. The Chair advised the members present that a quorum had not been achieved. He asked the members present if anyone objected to the items on the agenda being discussed on the understanding that no decisions could be made. No objections were raised. 02/11 Declarations of interest by Councillors Councillor Chris Stanbra declared a personal interest as a member of Corby Borough Council. 03/11 Minutes of the meeting held on 7 December 2010 The Planning Manager, Andrew Longley, advised the committee that the CALA homes case was still progressing through the courts. The retail study referred to at the last meeting was also still to be completed and it was expected the final draft would be ready next week. 04/11 Joint Core Strategy Review: Issues Paper and Consultation The Chairman invited Dr Tom Kelly to speak. Dr Kelly made the following points: At a recent planning inquiry in Burton Latimer, the planning inspector took issue with the 5 year supply and granted consent, ; This would maximise the disruption to the local community, particularly as previous appeal decisions had already committed more than 90% of the core strategy target for the town to 2021; The problem was with PPS3, which required a supply of ‘deliverable’ sites. The application of PPS3 in a recession had not been considered when that policy was drafted; The benefits of localism would not be realised because the pedantic application of PPS3 rode roughshod over the wishes of local people; and He urged the committee to support an amendment of PPS3. The Chairman invited Councillor Christopher Groome to speak. Councillor Groome made the following points: Two sites had recently been granted planning permission on the edges of Burton Latimer. In both cases the inspector gave undue weight to PPS3; If development was not constrained to what could realistically be built, a great deal of sustainable development would be at risk as developers would always build cheaper developments rather than paying CIL; and Anything the Committee could do to help would be gratefully received. Members of the Committee made the following points: Any planning framework should be grounded in reality and take into account what was actually deliverable; It was questioned whether the committee would be able to press for an amendment to paragraph 71 of PPS3; It was felt that local planning authorities did not seem to have a final say in planning applications; and It was questioned whether developers could be required to demonstrate that sites were deliverable at the planning permission stage The Planning Manager made the following points: The JPU shares the concern over the impact of smaller sites on the delivery of the sustainable urban extensions and supporting infrastructure. The JPC’s Statement of Intent on housing requirements is intended to ease the 5 year supply issue and the proposed introduction of a Community Infrastructure Levy would ensure that all sites contribute to infrastructure requirements.; and The deliverability of a scheme is generally only an issue if a developer says he cannot afford to meet affordable housing or infrastructure requirements. The issue will be reported to the Chief Planning Officers for discussion and the Committee will be updated at its next meeting. Although the committee was not quorate, if it were the wish of members present he could write to the Department for Communities and Local Government setting out their concerns with regards to PPS3. Members agreed that this should be done; The Principal Planner introduced the Issues consultation document, made the following points and invited comments from Members in order that the contents could be finalised: The report presented to the Committee was designed to gauge the views of the general public and local businesses; and It was planned that consultation would be carried out in high street locations to give members of the public an opportunity to talk to officers from the NNJPU; Members of the Committee made the following points: With regards to the consultation document, it would be helpful if it made reference to neighbourhood plans and also if it were used to gauge the views of the business sector. Broadband coverage and speeds were an issue in the rural area and this should be flagged up The question about organic growth should be re-phrased to ask about the potential impact on villages of 10% growth every ten years 05/11 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Developer Contributions The Chairman invited the Planning Manager to introduce the item. The Planning Manager made the following points: The draft SPD had now been through a consultation and appraisal process; The Government had now made it clear that it saw the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) as the way forward for developer contributions; Many concerns and objections had been raised by developers, and these formed useful feedback; Legal advice on the way forward had been sought and was appended to the report; As per the recommendations, proposals for a CIL framework would be presented for consideration by the Committee in due course and the draft SPD would be adapted to form a technical background document to help with site negotiations in the interim. 06/11 To inform the Joint Planning Committee of the completion of the 2009-10 Joint Annual Monitoring Report The Chairman invited the Principal Planner to introduce the item. The Principal Planner made the following points: North Northamptonshire currently had a 3.9 year supply of housing land against the target of 5 years; A number of projects had been successfully completed during the past year, including some of the Wellingborough Town Centre improvements; and Progress on plan making had been limited due to the change of Government and consequential changes to the planning system. Members of the Committee noted that East Northamptonshire had exceeded the Core Spatial Strategy jobs requirement, and it was agreed that further details should be provided so that any examples of good practice could be shared. There being no other business the meeting concluded at 7.53pm Paul Hanson, Democratic Services, Northamptonshire County Council .