Agenda item

The Chair advised that two questions from members of the public had been received, details of which were included at Agenda Item 5.

The Chair invited the member of the public who had submitted Question1/2020 to put his question to the Executive Member for Regeneration. As there was some technical difficulties, the Chair read the question out on behalf of the member of the public.

The Executive Member advised that whilst Policy H23 stated that apartments would not be permitted, the development brief recognised that it may be appropriate to see their development in this specific location for two reasons. Firstly, it would help to increase the amount of affordable housing that could be delivered on this site. The original intention was to bring forward a high value, extra care scheme in this location in lieu of affordable housing. As that scheme was no longer coming forward, it was considered appropriate for an affordable housing scheme of sufficient value to be developed in its place. Secondly, the brief recognised that, as a prominent corner site, an apartment scheme might provide the most appropriate design solution. This did not mean that apartments would definitely be developed on the site, only that they might be acceptable if they were of sufficiently high quality design. Any proposal would be subject to a planning application where these matters would be considered in detail.

With regards to rejecting the adoption of the Hemlington North development brief, this was not something the Council could do now the call-in period had expired. In any case, he stated that he did not consider it necessary for the Council to do so and that he would not be seeking any amendments to the adopted brief. The Executive Member advised that the purpose of the consultation was to consider the detailed design and layout matters that would accompany the marketing of the site, and which the Council would take into account during the consideration of future planning applications, and not the principles of development.

Many of the comments received, however, related to the principle of development and, as such, were beyond the scope of the development brief and the consultation exercise. In the case of Hemlington North, the principle had already been determined through a previous planning application that identified this site as being the location of the affordable housing to support the wider Hemlington Grange development. In the case of Hemlington Grange South, the site was allocated for development in the Housing Local Plan. He advised that he did not consider that the Council had failed to respond to the legitimate issues raised, and that the responses were appropriate when considered against the scope of the consultation.

The Chair invited the member of the public who had submitted Question 2/2020 to put his question to the Executive Member for Regeneration. As there was some technical difficulties, the Chair read the question out on behalf of the member of the public.

The Executive Member advised that without further information on which issues the Council was considered to have failed to respond, he stated the purpose of the consultation was to consider the detailed design and layout matters that would accompany the marketing of the site, and which the Council would take into account during the consideration of future planning applications, and not the principles of development.

Many of the comments received, however, related to the principle of development and, as such, were beyond the scope of the development brief and the consultation exercise. In the case of Hemlington North, the principle had already been determined through a previous planning application that identified this site as being the location of the affordable housing to support the wider Hemlington Grange development. In the case of Hemlington Grange South, the site was allocated for development in the Housing Local Plan. He advised that he did not consider that the Council had failed to respond to the legitimate issues raised, and that the responses were appropriate when considered against the scope of the consultation.

In terms of the 'cut and paste approach', it was recognised that the Council had provided identical responses where the same issue had been raised by more than one consultee. This approach was taken primarily to ensure consistency. He stated that he was satisfied that all of the comments were properly considered with appropriate responses.

The Executive Member advised that he did agree with paragraph 1.10 of the Council's Statement of Community Involvement, and considered that the consultation on the Hemlington development briefs was undertaken properly in accordance with the spirit of the SCI. He stated that he also considered that the decision was made in the wider public interest.