The petition entitled ‘Keep Clayton Green from inappropriate developments’ was received by Full Council on 18 July 2017 and referred for consideration by the Executive.

The petition relates to concerns about housing development within Clayton and potential impacts on the local area from any further development specifically the loss of green space but also on local infrastructure.

The Strategic Director Place will submit a report (Document “U”) which considers the concerns raised in the petition regarding development within Clayton with specific reference to the role and process of the Local Plan and consideration of planning proposals.

Recommended –

(1)       The Executive is recommended to note the contents of the         petition.

(2)       That the Assistant Director Planning Transportation and Highways receive the issues for consideration as part of the local          plan preparation process.

Overview and Scrutiny Committee: Environment and Waste Management

(Andrew Marshall - 01274 434050)

The petition entitled ‘Keep Clayton Green from inappropriate developments’ was received by Full Council on 18 July 2017 and referred for consideration by the Executive.

The petition related to concerns about housing development within Clayton and potential impacts on the local area from any further development specifically the loss of green space but also on local infrastructure.

The Strategic Director Place submitted a report (Document “U”) which addressed the concerns raised in the petition regarding development within Clayton with specific reference to the role and process of the Local Plan and consideration of planning proposals.

The Chief Executive stressed at the outset that planning considerations were part of a quasi judicial process and that planning matters did not form part of the Executive’s remit, and therefore in considering the petition and the issues it raised, it was important for Members to be mindful of this and not to pre judge any planning matters.

The Lead petitioner was present at the meeting and stated that although she appreciated that sites needed to be identified for development, the Council’s housing target for the district was over ambitious in line with the development plan.  In addition there were a number of vacant homes in Clayton and that roads and other infrastructure were inadequate to support additional housing development. She cited that 300 plus homes had been built in Clayton since 1995 and there was insufficient infrastructure to support this level of housing development, and she therefore questioned the wisdom of identifying land in Clayton for development without the necessary infrastructure in place.  She added that Clayton was a rural location and there were ample brownfield sites in the vicinity of Clayton, earmarked for commercial use that could be released for housing development, and that this model could be replicated in other parts of the district, in particular as many of theses site remained undeveloped and were an eyesore.  She stressed that she appreciated people wanted to live in rural locations, however further development would not only erode green space, but also be detrimental to those already residing in these areas, therefore further analysis of housing needs and suitable sites was required.

In response to the issues raised by the petitioner, the Planning and Transport Manager explained that the Council had only recently adopted the Core Strategy, which had been carefully scrutinised by the Government Inspector, prior to its adoption and it had been considered sound.  He added that housing development did take into account the vacant homes situation and that the Council was proactive in dealing with this issue.

In relation to the issue of infrastructure in the context of housing development, the Planning and Transport Manager explained that detailed work on infrastructure needs would be looked at as part of individual development proposals coming forward.  In relation to brownfield sites, it was stressed that not all brownfield sites were suitable for housing development.

The Regeneration, Planning and Transport Portfolio Holder stated that although he appreciated the concerns raised by the petition, individual planning applications would be considered through the relevant planning process, however the Core Strategy had been judged sound by the Inspector, despite it being called in, and therefore the Strategy had been through a rigorous inspection process and accorded with policy.

In relation to brownfield sites, he stated that viability was a key question, as additional costs were involved in developing brownfield sites and therefore developers were sometimes wary in prioritising brownfield sites.  In addition a number of brownfield  sites were designated for industrial/commercial use.

He advised officers to engage with the lead petitioner on the issues raised, however representations about an individual planning application should be made to the relevant Planning Committee.

Resolved –

(1)       That the contents of the petition be noted.

(2)       That the Assistant Director Planning Transportation and Highways receive the issues for consideration as part of the local          plan preparation process.

ACTION:       Assistant Director Planning Transportation and                                          Highways

Overview and Scrutiny Committee: Environment and Waste Management

(Andrew Marshall - 01274 434050)