Issue - meetings

National Planning Policy stats that Local Plans should meet objectively assessed needs with sufficient flexibility to adapt to rapid change unless there is any adverse impact in doing so.  The National Planning Policy Guidance makes it clear that whilst the establishment of development needs should be unbiased relevant constraints including environmental constraints needs to be addressed when bringing evidence bases together and formulating policies.  A Constraints Study has been produced to demonstrate that the Council have appraised and taken into account constraints relevant to the borough.

The Committee is asked to consider the Constraints Study and agree to its publication.

The Committee:

(1)          Considered the Constraint Study and agreed to its publication;

(2)          Agreed with the definition of the Primary Constraints that would prevent development form taking place and where it would not be possible to mitigate impacts;

(3)          Noted that the study recommended that a further assessment be undertaken to consider how the constraints affect the land parcels identified within the Epsom and Ewell Green Belt Study 2017;

(4)          Agreed that the Study’s inputs be used to inform the partial review of the Core Strategy.

The Committee received and considered a report regarding the Constraints Study.

National planning policy stated that Local Plans ought to meet objectively assessed needs, with sufficient flexibility to adapt to rapid change.  This was unless there was any adverse impact in doing so which would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefit. This was based on an assessment against the policies within the National Planning Policy Framework or where specific policies in the Framework indicated development ought to be restricted.

National planning practice guidance made it clear that whilst the establishment of development needs ought to be unbiased, relevant constraints – including environmental constraints – needed to be addressed when bringing evidence bases together and formulating policies.

The Primary Constraints as set out in the policy were noted as follows:

·                     Undeveloped functional flood plain;

·                     Sites of Special Scientific Interest;

·                     Local Nature Reserves;

·                     Sites of Nature Conservation Importance

·                     Ancient Woodlands

·                     Registered Parks and Gardens

It was further noted that designation as a Field in Trust (King George V or Queen Elizabeth II Playing Field) was not considered a primary constraint.  In terms of protection, such sites were protected by land law not planning designation although, in reality, were unlikely to be considered as potential development sites.  Designation as Green Belt was also not a primary constraint.  However, whilst the exceptions as to when development in the Green Belt would not be considered inappropriate had been widened, national and local Green Belt policy still clearly regarded the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt as inappropriate.

Accordingly, the Committee:

(1)          Considered the Constraint Study and agreed to its publication;

(2)          Agreed with the definition of the Primary Constraints that would prevent development form taking place and where it would not be possible to mitigate impacts;

(3)          Noted that the study recommended that a further assessment be undertaken to consider how the constraints affect the land parcels identified within the Epsom and Ewell Green Belt Study 2017;

(4)          Agreed that the Study’s inputs be used to inform the partial review of the Core Strategy.