Issue - meetings

To consider the report of the Assistant Director: Planning and Implementation, (copy enclosed).

The Council considered the report of the Assistant Director: Planning and Implementation seeking Members’ approval of the Maldon District Local Development Plan (LDP) Review Options for Growth 2025 to enable further testing and modelling to be undertaken by the Council and its partners.

The report provided background information regarding the LDP Review, the seven options identified following consideration of the Issues and Options consultation feedback and related Member briefing. Members were reminded of the three options approved by the Council in September 2023 (as set out in the report) and Appendix A detailed the national policy changes that had occurred since that approval. The most fundamental change was an update to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which had resulted in a reduction of the District’s Five-Year Housing Land Supply (5YHLS) and the Council needing to consider a higher housing target for the LDP Review.

Appendix A provided further details in respect of the three options approved. It was noted that for a number of reasons (as detailed in the Appendix) to move the LDP Review forward, there was only one option Officers were bringing forward to test further, this was:

·                Option 3 – Growth generally focused on the towns Maldon and Heybridge and Burnham-on-Crouch and all the large villages of the Settlement Pattern.

It was clarified that the ‘large villages’ would be Southminster, Great Totham south, Tollesbury, Latchingdon, Tillinghamm, Tolleshunt D’Arcy, Wickham Bishops and Mayland.

The Chairperson drew Members’ attention to an addendum that was circulated prior to the meeting detailing proposed amendments to the recommendation.

In her introduction of the report, the Head of Planning Policy and Implementation gave a short presentation which detailed the stage the Council had reached in the LDP Review timetable, how the chosen option would be used to model and test with statutory partners and there would be work carried out around a Strategic Environmental Assessment and Habitats Regulation Assessment. All the work would go forward towards the formation of an up-to-date Infrastructure Delivery Plan. Members were reminded that they were not being asked to agree a preferred option for growth or agree any housing numbers.

Members were advised that options 3 and 5 were very similar except option 5 included large sites adjacent to the boundary of the District, or in other settlements (Althorne and South Woodham Ferrers (SWF)). The proposed change to the recommendation would mean that in addition to option 3 the site adjacent to SWF would be included for testing and modelling.

The Chairperson moved the revised recommendation, as set out on the addendum. This was duly seconded.

During the lengthy debate that ensued Members raised a number of comments and concerns, to which the Officers responded and provided further information including:

·                the importance of Members’ oversight in terms of infrastructure was highlighted and it was noted that there were a number of elements of the LDP which were set by the Government and therefore the Council didn’t have any control over.

·                If the site adjacent  ...  view the full minutes text for item 100