Planning Consultation

Planning Consultation

Thu 1st Oct 2020, 10:00am

Responds to the planning applications within Macclesfield as a statutory consultee.

Key Information

Dates

Thu 1st Oct 2020, 10:00am

In Categories

Planning Committee
Agendas

Macclesfield Town Council

Planning Consultation Working Group Agenda 1st October 2020

Due to the Coronavirus Covid-19 restrictions and in line with the Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panel Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020 this meeting will be held remotely.

Agenda for the meeting on 1st October 2020 at 10am.

1. Apologies for Absence

2. Minutes of the Planning Committee Meeting held on 23rd September 2020

Action: To consider the draft minutes as a true record of the meeting.

3. Matters Arising from the Minutes

Action: To consider any matters arising from the minutes.

4.   The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s Consultation:

4.1 Planning for the future

Action: To formulate a response to the above Consultation.

5. Date/Time and Place of Next Meeting

To be agreed

The format/venue to be confirmed subject to C-19 restrictions and related regulations.

Minutes

Macclesfield Town Council

Planning Consultation Working Group Minutes 1st October 2020

Due to the Coronavirus Covid-19 restrictions and in line with the Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panel Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020 this meeting was held remotely.

Minutes of the meeting held on 1st October 2020 at 10am.

In attendance:

  • Cllr Mike Hutchison
  • Cllr Janet Jackson MBE
  • Cllr Fiona Wilson

1. Apologies for Absence

Cllr Alift Harewood MBE

2. Minutes of the Planning Committee Meeting held on 23rd September 2020

RESOLVED: That the minutes are approved as a true record of the meeting.

3. Matters Arising from the Minutes

The consultation response for ‘changes to the current planning system’ were submitted.

4. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s Consultation:

4.1 Planning for the future

RESOLVED: That a response to the consultation is returned, subject to ratification by the Planning Committee.

The response is contained in Annex 1 of these minutes.

5. Date/Time and Place of Next Meeting

To be advised

The format/venue to be confirmed subject to C-19 restrictions and related regulations.

 

Meeting closed at 12.09pm

Chair:   Cllr Mike Hutchison

Clerk:   Harriet Worrell

Annex 1

Responses: Planning for the future

  1. What three words do you associate most with the planning system in England?
  • Underfunded,
  • Too nationally directed/autocratic
  • Insufficient focus on affordable and starter homes.

2. Do you get involved with planning decisions in your local area? [Yes / No]

(a). If no, why not? [Don’t know how to / It takes too long / It’s too complicated / I don’t care / Other – please specify]

Yes, Macclesfield Town Council has a Planning Committee that meets every 3-4 weeks as a consultee on local planning applications.

3. Our proposals will make it much easier to access plans and contribute your views to planning decisions. How would you like to find out about plans and planning proposals in the future? [Social media / Online news / Newspaper / By post / Other – please specify]

The local planning authority, Cheshire East Council, and Macclesfield Town Council have an established digital presence for accessing planning applications. Macclesfield Town Council broadcasts meetings live, enabling residents to have real time access to discussions on planning applications.

All methods of promoting current planning applications are welcomed but with particular emphasis on retaining notices at the location of the development and neighbour notification.

4. What are your top three priorities for planning in your local area? [Building homes for young people / building homes for the homeless / Protection of green spaces / The environment, biodiversity and action on climate change / Increasing the affordability of housing / The design of new homes and places / Supporting the high street / Supporting the local economy / More or better local infrastructure / Protection of existing heritage buildings or areas / Other – please specify]

  • Increasing the affordability of housing
  • Supporting the high street
  • The environment, biodiversity and action on climate change

5. Do you agree that Local Plans should be simplified in line with our proposals? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]

No – the local authority has the knowledge and understanding to develop a Local Plan to meet the needs of the local area.

6. Do you agree with our proposals for streamlining the development management content of Local Plans, and setting out general development management policies nationally? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]

No – Local Plans currently sit within the framework of the NPPF and are fit for purpose. Central Development Management should not dictate content for local areas; elected representatives and the local community should have a say on development in their area.

7. (a) Do you agree with our proposals to replace existing legal and policy tests for Local Plans with a consolidated test of “sustainable development”, which would include consideration of environmental impact? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]

No – assessments should be conducted at a local level where there is an understanding of local need.

(b) How could strategic, cross-boundary issues be best planned for in the absence of a formal Duty to Cooperate?

Retain the Duty to Cooperate

8. a) Do you agree that a standard method for establishing housing requirements (that takes into account constraints) should be introduced? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]

No – housing requirements should be determined and set at a local level where the local needs are understood, particularly in terms of the quantity of affordable and starters homes and rental properties.

(b)  Do you agree that affordability and the extent of existing urban areas are appropriate indicators of the quantity of development to be accommodated? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]

No – housing requirements should be determined and set at a local level where the local needs are understood.

9. (a). Do you agree that there should be automatic outline permission for areas for substantial development (Growth areas) with faster routes for detailed consent? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]

No – the existing process should be retained so the development plans e.g. access, landscaping, habitat preservation and infrastructure, can be scrutinised by the local planning authority, elected representatives and local community.

(b) Do you agree with our proposals above for the consent arrangements for Renewal and Protected areas? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]

No – the existing process should be retained so the development plans for renewal and protected areas e.g. access, landscaping, habitat preservation and infrastructure, can be scrutinised by the local planning authority, elected representatives and local community.

(c) Do you think there is a case for allowing new settlements to be brought forward under the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects regime? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]

No – the existing process should be retained so the new settlement plans e.g. access, landscaping, habitat preservation and infrastructure, can be scrutinised by the local planning authority, elected representatives and local community.

10. Do you agree with our proposals to make decision-making faster and more certain? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]

No – the current planning provision is under-resourced.

11. Do you agree with our proposals for accessible, web-based Local Plans? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]

No – the local authority web-based planning portal is already fit for purpose.

12. Do you agree with our proposals for a 30 month statutory timescale for the production of Local Plans? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]

Yes, but allowing for local exceptional evidence based circumstances such as the formation of a new local authority.

13.  (a) Do you agree that Neighbourhood Plans should be retained in the reformed planning system? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]

Yes

(b) How can the neighbourhood planning process be developed to meet our objectives, such as in the use of digital tools and reflecting community preferences about design?

The local authority and Macclesfield Town Council already makes use of digitised tools.

14. Do you agree there should be a stronger emphasis on the build out of developments? And if so, what further measures would you support? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]

Yes – there should be more emphasis on developers completing the build of houses as quickly as possible following planning consent.

15. What do you think about the design of new development that has happened recently in your area? [Not sure or indifferent / Beautiful and/or well-designed / Ugly and/or poorly-designed / There hasn’t been any / Other – please specify]

Other – design has reflected the character of the local area, with use of appropriate materials to reflect the history of the market town for nearby and in town developments.

16. Sustainability is at the heart of our proposals. What is your priority for sustainability in your area? [Less reliance on cars / More green and open spaces / Energy efficiency of new buildings / More trees / Other – please specify]

All of the above but less reliance on cars is dependent on the implementation of infrastructure to support walking and cycling routes in and around towns.

Macclesfield Town Council is proceeding with a Future Forests project to improve sustainability in the local area.

17. Do you agree with our proposals for improving the production and use of design guides and codes? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]

Other – design guides and codes should be determined at a local level.

18. Do you agree that we should establish a new body to support design coding and building better places, and that each authority should have a chief officer for design and place-making? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]

No – more planning officers are needed at a local level to resource the planning process.

19. Do you agree with our proposal to consider how design might be given greater emphasis in the strategic objectives for Homes England? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]

Other – Homes England have already demonstrated at a local level a good understanding of design that reflects the local character of the town.

20. Do you agree with our proposals for implementing a fast-track for beauty? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]

No – existing measures should be retained to meet local needs including character and affordability.

21. When new development happens in your area, what is your priority for what comes with it? [More affordable housing / More or better infrastructure (such as transport, schools, health provision) / Design of new buildings / More shops and/or employment space / Green space/ Don’t know / Other – please specify]

All of the above.

And,

  • Cycling and walking links,
  • By convention, integrate provision for home working into design,
  • Energy efficient design,
  • Integrated fire safety measures,
  • Parking provision,
  • Future proofing homes.

22. (a) Should the Government replace the Community Infrastructure Levy and Section 106 planning obligations with a new consolidated Infrastructure Levy, which is charged as a fixed proportion of development value above a set threshold? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]

No – but any new levy should reflect the local use of S106 provision with levy rates set at a single rate to apply to all developments.

(b) Should the Infrastructure Levy rates be set nationally at a single rate, set nationally at an area-specific rate, or set locally? [Nationally at a single rate / Nationally at an area-specific rate / Locally]

Set locally to apply to all areas.

(c) Should the Infrastructure Levy aim to capture the same amount of value overall, or more value, to support greater investment in infrastructure, affordable housing and local communities? [Same amount overall / More value / Less value / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]

More value for infrastructure, affordable housing and local communities.

(d) Should we allow local authorities to borrow against the Infrastructure Levy, to support infrastructure delivery in their area? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]

No, to prevent overborrowing.

23. Do you agree that the scope of the reformed Infrastructure Levy should capture changes of use through permitted development rights? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]

Yes – to contribute to infrastructure delivery and community enhancements.

24. (a) Do you agree that we should aim to secure at least the same amount of affordable housing under the Infrastructure Levy, and as much on-site affordable provision, as at present? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]

No – the threshold for affordable housing should be set at a site size of 15 houses or 0.4 hectares such with at least 30% of houses are affordable. Minimum standards of quality should be set.

(b) should affordable housing be secured as in-kind payment towards the Infrastructure Levy, or as a ‘right to purchase’ at discounted rates for local authorities? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]

No – to ensure all houses are built at a high standard with minimum standards of quality set.

(c) If an in-kind delivery approach is taken, should we mitigate against local authority overpayment risk?  [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]

Yes – minimum standards of quality should be set.

(d) If an in-kind delivery approach is taken, are there additional steps that would need to be taken to support affordable housing quality? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]

Yes – minimum standards of quality should be set.

25. Should local authorities have fewer restrictions over how they spend the Infrastructure Levy? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]

Yes – the spend in the community needs to be identified by the local authority on specific projects that offset the impact of the development. Restrictions on affordable housing should be lifted but the levy spent locally in keeping with S106 contributions.

(a) If yes, should an affordable housing ‘ring-fence’ be developed? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]

Other – ring-fence affordable housing but protect the 25% of the levy that is given to parish councils

26. Do you have any views on the potential impact of the proposals raised in this consultation on people with protected characteristics as defined in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010?

Development should reflect the needs in society and provide safe homes that promote health and wellbeing with a residential mix. At least 30% of homes should be affordable and distributed, as too rented properties, throughout a development site to prevent a cluster of housing types that may foster perceptions of inequality between residents of diverse economic means.

There is real concern that offsetting affordable houses to alternate sites dedicated for this market will lead to an extreme sense of inequality and discrimination, with the potential for such areas to decline and impact negatively on residents’ health and wellbeing.

There should a focus on homes for life so people may feel connected to their community, instilling a sense of civic pride and community cohesion.

New homes must meet high environmental standards such as electric charging points, low energy boilers and insulation to future proof the world in a time when climate emergencies have been declared by many councils. The health and wellbeing of future generations is dependent on responsible and decisive action now.

Larger developments in particular should have a responsibility to ensure there is no detrimental impact to existing services and infrastructure (health service, education, transport) that may indirectly discriminate against minority groups. This can be achieved through CIL or S106 injections or the development providing its own services, providing there is a sustainable infrastructure link to the town centre and the development does not divert footfall from the town centre.

Back to all Council Meetings