Agenda and minutes

To receive declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests, other registrable interests and non-registrable interests or any conflicts of interest in respect of the item on the agenda for this meeting. 

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors Kate Gregory, Alexandrine Kantor, Axel Macdonald, Denise Macdonald, Ben Manning,

Zia Mohmmed and Jo Robb.

To receive notification of any matters which the chairman determines should be considered as urgent business and the special circumstances which have made the matters urgent, and to receive any announcements from the chair. 

The chair advised that there was no urgent business and provided housekeeping announcements. 

Members of the public who wish to address Council on the agenda item for this meeting must register to do so in writing or by email to democratic.services@southandvale.gov.uk no later than 5.00pm on Wednesday 18 September 2024. 

None.

Cabinet, at its meeting to be held on 19 September prior to this meeting, will consider the report of the head of policy and programmes on progress made to date with the preparation of the Joint Local Plan, including explaining how comments raised during previous public consultations and internal consultation have influenced its structure and content. 

The report which Cabinet will consider is available here.

Council is invited to consider Cabinet’s recommendations.

Council considered Cabinet’s recommendations, made at its meeting immediately preceding the Council meeting on the approval of the publication version of the Joint Local Plan 2041.

Councillor Simpson, Cabinet Member for Planning, introduced the item and moved Cabinet’s recommendations. In doing so he began by expressing her delight that she was able to present a plan to Council which reflected the policies which so many members had been campaigning on and pursuing with diligence and enthusiasm at recent elections and during their time as councillors. The Regulation 19 Joint Local Plan (the Plan) presented to Council marked the culmination of collaborative work commenced in March 2021 with Vale of White Horse District Council. The Plan would set a higher policy requirement for new development leading to more sustainable development in each district. The Plan would secure nature recovery, more affordable housing, a substantial response to climate change and protect landscapes.  She advised that the Plan was being brought forward earlier than anticipated. The revision to the timeline was in response to an offer from the Deputy Prime Minister to submit a plan within one month of the new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) coming into force. Whilst the Plan had been accelerated, he emphasised that effective consultation had been undertaken with the public who had responded positively. In addition, 35 member steering group sessions had been undertaken and 14 all member roundtable sessions. She reminded Council that to enable the submission of the Plan in December it was necessary to agree the Plan as drafted. Unpicking elements of the Plan at this stage risked running into problems with the Sustainability Appraisal, Habitats Regulation Assessment and Viability Assessment which would prevent the early submission, and with it the advantages, of the Plan. She thanked Councillor Foulsham, Vale of White Horse District Council’s Cabinet Member for Policy and Programmes, who had provided her with support and guidance during the development of the Plan.  

Members welcomed the Plan which was ambitious for residents and the environment. Members welcomed the policies included to provide housing for residents – affordable, rental and of different sizes and types with a 50 per cent affordable mix. They welcomed the policies to protect the environment, tackle climate change, promote nature recovery, build sustainable communities and the inclusion of policies applicable to development including embodied carbon, biodiversity net gain and dark skies mapping. A number of members welcomed the deallocation of sites and particularly Chalgrove airfield which did not meet the social and environmental policies of the Plan, was unlikely to be achievable with an objection from the Civil Aviation Authority and was considered undeliverable in light of the continued use of the site by Martin Baker.     

Whilst the majority of members who expressed a view strongly welcomed the Plan some issues and observations were raised. Views were expressed that the Plan did not include policies to safeguard public houses, that the deliverability of the Plan was reliant on infrastructure and particularly the Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF) roads, that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.