Agenda item

The Joint Scrutiny Committee is being asked to review this report and share any comments or suggestions with the Head of Policy and Programmes, South Cabinet Member for Planning and the Vale Cabinet Member for Corporate Services, Policy and Programmes, for consideration prior to the commencement of the consultation period.  

The report has six appendices. Due to the size of the documentation, please refer to page 179 in this agenda pack for instructions on viewing the documents.

Cabinet members for Corporate Services, Policy and Programmes (Vale) and Planning (South) were present to introduce the report. Officers present were Head of Policy and Programmes, Policy Manager, Principal Planning Policy Officer and the Planning Policy Team Leader.

Cabinet member for South explained that the consultation showed policy topics and the preferred options so far. Policy options had been tested and developed with shaping via Councillor roundtables and cross-party steering group meetings. Technical studies had been undertaken and others were in progress and officers will add the details of those and refine approaches as they emerge ahead of consultation stage Regulation 19 (draft plan stage) in Autumn 2024. This stage was to seek public views via consultation documents set out in the agenda pack.

Cabinet member for Vale explained that Corporate Plan ambitions were mirrored in the new Joint Local Plan and it was innovative. This plan pushes the envelope on climate and biodiversity. The consultation was interactive with maps and infographics, and the “Joint Local Plan in a nutshell” consultation document (“in a nutshell” for short), which helps the public to get to grips with the plan without needing to go through all the documentation if they don’t want to.

Comments from Scrutiny Committee would be considered ahead of publication of the consultation. Both Cabinets had set a meeting in the diary to discuss the outcome of this meeting.

Committee’s comments:

• IN1 – 7 policies: a member suggested that some of his residents were interested in infrastructure. IN3 – there was a long list of safeguarded transport schemes that some residents would be very keen to comment on. Was there a route to getting resident’s views on infrastructure? Cabinet member for South explained that the ‘in a nutshell’ document would help more people to engage and give their views. Section nine deals with community infrastructure, and they were also able to swap to the full document. Chair added that officers should ensure full communications to explain how the documents were intended to be used.
• Wording of the questions – please double check the wording to ensure no confusion. Officer did add that questions had been checked by other officers, but they would take this comment into consideration.
• Officers were thanked on the work done, as well as the Cabinet Members. Praised for the ambition in the document.
• Can we add heat transfer – noting the data centres we were expecting.
• Given the large proportion of AONB and green belt land in the districts - was there justification for going below the standard method as we had historic housing supply baked into our current plans. Cabinet member for South explained that standard method was recommended for housing need, no local exceptions justified going lower. These policies can be reviewed in full and such responses can be put into the consultation and taken into consideration.
• Bigger font size for the ‘in a nutshell’ document. Streamline the links to the main documents. Officer confirmed it will be an interactive webpage and you can adjust size as you wish.
• In response to Sue Roberts comment in public participation – can we take a constrained approach to housing numbers? Cabinet member for South replied that this would be something to look at in the Regulation 19 consultation stage.
• Member supported encouraging various response methods from groups as per David Marsh’s suggestion in public participation. It was noted by Cabinet member for Vale that Town and Parish Councils were already being encouraged and signposted with planned events coming up for councils and seldom heard groups. Options will be available but online preferable. Chair suggested a hybrid option, by keeping to the layout of the online consultation, say, if a group plans on submitting a paper document.
• Suggest avoiding jargon – ask a non-professional to check the wording.
• The difference in the summary of the ‘in a nutshell’ document to the main document – officers explained that the ‘in a nutshell’ document was intended as a summary. We will analyse the responses to both documents separately, so essentially running two consultations. The ‘in a nutshell’ responses are allowed to be anonymous.
• Felt that the ‘in a nutshell’ document lost some of the vision and excitement of the full consultation document. For example, we need to challenge the perception that green technology was expensive, and that there were great benefits to gain from it. Cabinet member for Vale explained that the communications messages that will come out will contain the enthusiasm and vision to go with the documents.
• A member stated that they were glad to see the changes made since the last iteration of the Plans and that comments had been taken onboard about climate, renewables etc, and it was great to see the difference.
• Density per hectare was discussed and that it was felt to be too rigid – this question can be submitted in the consultation.
• Graphics related to allocations – it looked like a big difference between South and Vale. Concern of perceived imbalance. Officer explained that the diagrams were carefully considered to show spread of allocated sites, but we can take this point away.

Resolved:

As the meeting was close to reaching two and a half hours long, Committee voted on a 30-minute extension of the meeting to conclude business, which was agreed.

• Committee considered John Salmon’s comment in public participation, about residents suggesting green spaces. It was confirmed there was space to make suggestions in the consultation under HP4 or the final question box at the end, and through the Neighbourhood Plan process also. There was a high level of protection in HP4 for green spaces.
• A suggestion was made that the tiers could be confusing – it was confirmed that an explanatory document would be provided – the settlement assessment.
• Consider the potential confusion of the aforementioned tiers and the retail tiers in different parts of the document.
• “Biodiversity was expensive”, members questioned this wording. Officer explained that we’d need to test the viability of the policies. If it were too expensive it would not be viable. The wording was an indication that we must test the policies. Cabinet member for South added that we were being ambitious, so pushing the boundaries with the hope that the policies test well.
• A box could be added to ask consultees whether they have any other suggestions that weren’t included in the documents.
• IN5, parking standards. Cycling facilities – can we use another word other than “internal”, it’s too wide. Was secure lockable parking structures meant? Member was asked to feed this into the consultation.
• It was confirmed by officers that a sewage map couldn’t be included as it was Thames Water documentation.
• Regarding James Barlow’s queries in public participation – was there opportunity to talk about carbon footprint of building? If we create tonnes of carbon, was there renewable energy offsetting? Cabinet member for South explained that the climate emergency was high priority, but we also had to work to get through examination and find a balance. Policy CE2 was quoted by Cabinet member for Vale, as covering this detail. Officer added that higher standard of building should be net zero carbon, therefore tackling the issue of carbon footprint.
• TA member thanked Councillor Sarah James for providing a statement as she could not attend the meeting.

The Committee was asked to “review this report and share any comments or suggestions with the Head of Policy and Programmes, South Cabinet Member for Planning and the Vale Cabinet Member for Corporate Services, Policy and Programmes, for consideration prior to the commencement of the consultation period”.

Resolved:

Committee were impressed by the ambition of the consultation document, and praised those involved for all the work and consideration that went into its development.

Comments were provided, and the main points highlighted for recommendation were:

1. Committee felt that there needed to be a way of capturing infrastructure concerns within the consultation (reservoirs, community facilities, roads etc)
2. Communications: Committee suggested that members of the public need to be made aware that you can dip in and out of the “Joint Local Plan in a Nutshell” consultation document – officers did explain that further guidance was planned ahead of publication.
3. Members recommended that the wording of questions should be double checked for the public’s understanding, for example, avoid use of double negatives. They recommended a final check with an independent officer/3^rd party.
4. Committee commented on small fonts but were assured by officers that the digital outputs would be changeable to the reader’s requirements.
5. Committee agreed that the public should be able to submit responses in other formats, such as joint responses (where organisations respond together, such as Parishes), but did stress that such responses should follow the headings of the main consultation document for ease of reference.
6. Committee discussed putting the enthusiasm and excitement of the main document into the start of the “Joint Local Plan in a Nutshell” document – noting that the introduction to this document did not currently have the same impact. However, officers confirmed that the planned communications and guidance around the “in a Nutshell” document would add that enthusiasm, however this was the necessary downfall of creating a slim-lined document. However, the public have a choice of two documents which gives the public the benefit of choice.
7. Committee discussed the options available for people to identify areas they wish to designate as Local Green Spaces. It was confirmed that many communities do this through Neighbourhood Plans but the public could add suggestions in their consultation responses.
8. It was suggested that the final box of the consultation could be reworded to encourage more direct answers, for example  “ Is there anything else you would like to see in the Joint Local Plan that hasn’t been covered already?” alongside the question “Is there anything else you’d like to say?”
9. Praise was given to the officers and Cabinet members involved in this work on the consultation, and that the plan was generating excitement from members.