Issue - meetings

To consider the head of planning’s report. 

Cabinet considered the head of planning’s report which recommended adoption of a supplementary planning document for Botley Centre. 

Cabinet recalled that the supplementary planning document had come forward as an officer proposal, under Cabinet’s guidance.  Since Cabinet had deferred consideration of the draft supplementary planning document at its meeting on 30 October 2015, officers had sought advice on the lawfulness of the document.  Officers had made some clarification changes to the draft supplementary planning document and sustainability assessment and re-consulted on these.  The outcome of the consultation was set out in the appendix to the head of planning’s report.  Counsel had confirmed that the revised draft supplementary planning document met the legal requirements of the planning regulations and the head of legal and democratic services confirmed that it could be adopted by Cabinet. 

One of the aims of the Local Plan 2011 was to ensure that Botley was an attractive place for living, working and pursuing leisure interests.  To achieve this, the council sought to safeguard and promote the vitality and viability of Botley as a local service centre.  While the Local Plan set out many policies that applied to Botley, it did not set out how this development could take place.  Also, feedback from local people showed that they wanted a greater say in setting the policy context for any future planning application.  In deciding the appropriate planning policy framework for the regeneration of Botley Centre the following options were considered:

·         relying on adopted and emerging local plan policies

·         preparing a development brief

·         preparing a supplementary planning document

Cabinet concluded that relying on the local plan policies would not provide enough detail to cover the development of the Botley Centre site.  A development brief did not require formal consultation or a sustainability appraisal, and therefore carried less weight in the determination of planning applications compared to a supplementary planning document.  Cabinet preferred a supplementary planning document as the best method to provide a planning framework for the site.  It would provide a flexible strategy to guide development that supported the existing and future local community.  Planning applications for development at this site would be assessed against the supplementary planning document. 

The Cabinet member for planning policy reported that the supplementary planning document had to be based on evidence.  Technical work on the evidence base had been carried out by consultant DTZ.  The supplementary planning document was not based on any planning application, nor was it intended to reflect any forthcoming planning application. 

From the public consultation, there was some opposition to the supplementary planning document but the majority of respondents supported its adoption, as had the council’s Scrutiny Committee at its meeting on 14 January 2016.  Cabinet refuted the claim that the local community had not been consulted. 

Cabinet asked what major issues arose from the consultation that had not been reflected in changes to the draft supplementary planning document.  Officers reported that some respondents had asked for greater detail, for example on the quantum of land uses.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32