Wrthi'n llwytho
Y penderfyniadau fel y mae cofnodion y cyngor yn eu cofnodi. Bydd crynodeb mewn iaith glir yn dilyn pan fydd wedi'i ysgrifennu.
RESOLVED – That Councillor Bethan Proctor be appointed as Chairperson for the meeting.
RESOLVED : That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED – That Councillor Bethan Proctor be appointed as Chairperson for the meeting.
RESOLVED – That Councillor Bethan Proctor be appointed as Chairperson for the meeting.
Apologies were received from Councillor Mike Ash-Edwards.
The following declarations were received: Cllr Proctor Personal Works for Community Housing Cymru Cllr Davies Personal Works for a developer Cllr Wild Personal Director at Fleet EV
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED : That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.
The Committee received a report enabling Members to consider the Cardiff Replacement Local Development Plan 2021-2036: Deposit Plan (RLDP) prior to it being considered by Cabinet on 23rd January 2025. Members were advised that the focus of the Committee’s consideration of the report should two-fold. Firstly, the consultation and communication plan during the formal consultation period for the Deposit Plan recognising the recommendations made following the task and finish inquiry into the Strategic and Delivery options; and secondly, that since 2022 scrutiny committee work programmes have maintained a focus on the progress of the RLDP, with a number of inquiries running tangentially to its development. Three scrutiny inquiries have delivered 35 recommendations, and it was suggested that Members may wish to reassure themselves that the Deposit Plan has embraced those recommendations. The Committee’s observations and/or concerns would inform the Cabinet’s discussion of the proposed Plan via a Joint Committee letter to the Cabinet Member for Climate Change Strategic Planning and Transport. Members were further asked to note that there would also be an opportunity for individual scrutiny committees to respond to the formal consultation if there are any specific issues or areas of concern that need to be addressed that fall within their remit. The Chairperson welcomed Councillor Dan De’Ath, Cabinet Member for Climate Change, Strategic Planning and Transport; Andrew Gregory, Director of Planning Transport & Environment and Simon Gilbert, Head of Planning to the meeting. Following a statement from the Cabinet Member the officers were invited to deliver a presentation. The Chairperson then opened the debate on this item. Those discussions as summarised as follows: · A Member stated that the Policy Review and Performance Scrutiny Committee has been scrutinising how the Council undertakes its consultation exercises. The Member asked what was specifically being done to consult with groups that traditionally do not engage in consultation. The Member also requested further information on what the results of the consultation exercise will be used for, how the consultation feedback received would be balanced and how responsive would the authority be to such feedback. The Head of Planning stated that comments received from developers and comments received from residents would be considered equally. The authority has undertaken and robust and innovate engagement process over the past three years including having conversations with community groups. Officers have sought to widen the awareness of what the RLDP is and its purpose, particularly within groups that don’t traditionally engage with the planning process. An RLDP Engagement Strategy was developed in consultation with the charity Planning Aid Wales. The Strategy included a bespoke range of consultation methods. Members were advised that the RLDP can be changed as a result of the comments received during the consultation exercise. The Cabinet Member considered that the engagement events that had taken place to date have been very successful. A number of examples of the events were provided. · A Member sought to clarify how local members could have an input during the consultation exercise. A recommendation from the Task and Finish Group into Supplementary Planning Guidance, which was accepted, recommended that planning officers meet with local members to appraise them of specific issues and topics in order to inform the RLDP process. The Member stated that at such a meeting held recently it was suggested that it may be too late in the process for comments from local members to be taken effect any changes. The Member asked what input local members can have and what were the timescales necessary for local members to actively contribute to strengthening the RLPD. The Head of Planning stated that the comments had related to the Deposit RLDP version of the plan and was already in the public domain. However, it was not too late for local members to identify issues within the Deposit version. It was vital that all comments are captured before the final version of the plan was formally submitted to the Welsh Government. The Director of Strategy Planning considered that it was important to provide some challenge to the plan. · A Member asked whether officers were confident that the public engagement undertaken met the requirements of the Equalities Act and how the authority would mitigate for reaching the groups living in the most deprived areas of the city which are most unlikely to attend engagement events. The Head of Planning stated that the documentation being consulted upon contain over a million words, consisting of 31 technical reports. It was accepted that the documentation was sub-optimal and contained technical details that may be ‘impenetrable’ to some people. Alongside the offer to meet with community groups, officers have also engaged with the Council’s access group which includes representatives of residents with disabilities. It was considered that the authority is already doing more than the minimum required by the Equalities Act but there was scope to do more. In terms of engagement in deprived areas, officers have attempted to remove the barriers to engagement by holding events in those areas · A Member noted the Judicial Review decision in relation to the adoption of an LDP by Wrexham Council. The Member asked whether that decision would impact on the adoption of the RLDP in Cardiff. The Head of Planning considered that the matter was not relevant to the report or a matter for the Scrutiny Committee. Cardiff Council is following the regulations prescribed by Welsh Government and there was no suggestion that democracy is being restricted in Cardiff. · Officers were asked whether the consultation undertaken to date has help shape the Deposit RLDP and whether there were any examples where feedback received has led to the document being amended. The Head of Planning stated that a scrutiny committee task and finish group into Supplementary Planning Guidance recommended that more weight to be afforded to SPGs, as Planning Inspectors base their decisions on policy not guidance. Therefore, guidance has been embedded into the RLDP as detailed policy as a direct consequence of the Task and Finish Group recommendations. There were also examples where surveys and technical advice from colleagues who specialise in energy, drainage and green infrastructure have been embedded in the deposit document. The Head of Planning strongly supported the view that the RLDP has evolved as a result of the consultation undertaken to date. · A Member referred to the Equalities Impact Assessment and the conclusion that the RLDP would have ‘no deferential impact’ on any protected groups. The Member asked how that conclusion was reached and whether this was arrived at in consultation with representatives from protected groups. Members were advised that the EIA is undertaken in consultation with colleagues in the Equalities Team within the Cabinet Office. Members were asked to note that there were examples set out within the EIA narrative where policies within the plan would have a beneficial impact on groups with protected characteristics. · A Member asked how biodiversity policies have been shaped by the Climate Emergency declaration. Members were advised that the biodiversity policies seek to recognise both the Climate Emergency and the Nature Emergency. There are more policies regarding biodiversity in the Deposit RLDP than in the previous plan both in terms of areas of protection and recognising how every development in the city must now create a net-biodiversity benefit. · A Member sought clarification on how the 20,000 homes that have already been granted planning permission will impact on the RLDP. The Head of Planning stated that the RLDP recognises that there is a supply of new housing developments with planning permission and assumes that those houses will be built. It was accepted that homes in addition to those already with planning permission would take some time to be built. The RLDP seeks to stop the expansion of the city beyond those areas that currently have planning permission by utilising more brownfield sites. · A Member asked whether any work has been undertaken to engage with traveller and gypsy communities. The Head of Planning confirmed that consultation work is ongoing. · A Member sought assurance regarding the impact of the RLDP on ‘working-class’ communities of all ethnicities and more specifically on black and minority ethic communities. The Member asked whether officers believed sufficient work has been done to make the positive and negative impacts on those communities visible. The Head of Planning considered that enough work has been done, accepting that the RLDP seeks to benefit all communities in the city. The Director of Strategic Planning stated that there is a focus in the RLPD on localism including policies addressing issues identified by local members from inner-city wards. · A Member asked whether the RLDP has considered and assessed the impact the policies contained with the plan will have on existing local communities, local infrastructure and local amenities. The Head of Planning stated that the current LDP has processes in place for major developments whereby developers are required to engage with local communities before they make a planning application. The RLDP has introduced changes that provide an additional expectation that developers will contribute towards social value in communities such as supporting local employment or funding community initiatives. There is also an acknowledgement that district centres provide a wider role for communities than simply providing retail opportunities. It was considered that these tangible policy changes will embed or improve community facilities within communities and a recognition that if developers are investing in an area then there is an obligation to consider the needs of the local community. · A Member considered that the current LDP was not delivering the transport infrastructure the city needs. The Member sought assurance that RLDP would deliver the transport infrastructure, schools and other community facilities needed. The Director of Strategic Planning advised that approximately £30 million of Section 106 funding has been secured to deliver a range of infrastructure. However, the funding is only delivered upon completion of the houses. The Director considered that this is a structural problem that is recognised across the UK but it was important to acknowledge that Section 106 funding has been negotiated and the funding is in place for investment in infrastructure. In parallel to the structural issue there was also a need to recognise the kind of transport infrastructure the city needs to address congestion and move towards more sustainable transport and the level of funding needed for that. · A Member stated that the task and finish enquiry into district shopping centres highlighted that generalising about district shopping centres should be avoided as their roles and needs can be very different, depending on the area that they are in, and the RLDP should recognise this. The Head of Planning agreed with those comments and advised members that the RLDP has embedded within it the need for district shopping centres to adapt to the needs of the communities which they serve. Colleagues within Housing and Regeneration are working on a strategy looking at district centres, in consultation with Planning officers. Placemaking plans aim to improve connectivity, accessibility and social value in district centres. The RLDP looks to consider national policy in terms of land use and how that is interpretated on the ground. · A Member asked how the Welsh Language would form part of the RLDP and what engagement has there been with the community, particularly young people, and how the Welsh Language factors in. The Head of Planning was uncertain whether any engagement has taken place with young people specifically on the Welsh Language. However, officers had been working closely with colleagues within Bilingual Cardiff who have a wider reach in terms of engage with the Welsh Language community. The RLDP introduces two policies which aim to encourage developers to use and reference the language within developments and there is a commitment to introduce guidance for developers to achieve that. · A Member asked whether the ambition to build more densely on brownfield sites in the city would include provision of new schools and whether new schools fit into that vision. The Head of Planning stated that the plan makes provision requiring developers to make contributions toward education if they meet certain thresholds or if the development would yield pupils. If there was a development for family homes and there were no surplus places in existing schools then provision would be made to either build new schools are add places to existing schools. That process is well established. Planning offices also work strategically in collaboration with other service areas and other public service bodies in terms of consideration of the projected growth forecast in the RLDP so that their strategies can align with the RLDP in respect of provision of public services. · A Member sought to clarify whether the Companies House site would no longer be designated as employment land and whether it could be designated as educational land in the future. The Head of Planning stated that the Companies House site falls within the southern arc boundary and is not afforded any policy protection to retain any existing use. If a planning application was received for education use or housing use then the principle of the application would be acceptable in planning terms. · A Member referred to the consultation exercise undertaken as part of the roll out of the segregated recycling scheme in the city and specifically the Council’s intention to introduce a variation of the scheme for purpose-built flats. The Member asked whether planning policy would assist residents to present segregated waste, for example, by mandating storage areas for bins in outside areas. The Head of Planning stated that this issue has been recognised for a number of years and colleagues in Waste Management are consulted on all planning applications. The Policy in the RLDP is unchanged and says developers must have regard to waste collection services. Supplementary Planning Guidance is in place to guide developers and Waste Management colleagues will decide whether developments are in compliance with the policy. A review of the policy is being undertaken in terms of storage for waste. · A Member considered that the RLDP sets clear targets for the amount of carbon emissions produced by new housing. However, it was less clear in terms of the carbon emissions associated with the manufacturing of the materials used to construct new dwellings. The Member asked officers to explain what more could be done for the RLDP to highlight the life-cycle emissions of those materials. The Director advised that engagement was undertaken with the Council’s One Planet Cardiff team who were invited to challenge the policy on the elements they would like to see included such as Electric Vehicle Charging, renewable energy, heat networks, etc. Planning officers considered wider national legislation and regulation in those areas and arrived at a balanced, workable, policy. The Head of Planning considered that there was an increasing reliance on building regulations in terms of standards for sustainability and energy. The RLDP aims to advise Members of what is deliverable in terms of policy for supporting sustainable development. It was considered that addressing the point regarding carbon emissions from the life-cycle of materials would require a more holistic approach at a national level. Responding to a supplementary question, the Head of Planning stated that the RLDP has been published for public consultation and there would be a window of opportunity to amend the policy document prior to submission. · A Member noted the administration’s ambition for Cardiff to become a net-zero city by 2030 which is contained within the RLDP in a number of places. The Member stated that the Environmental Scrutiny Committee received previous indications that the 2030 target was unlikely to be achievable. The Member asked that, given the projected growth in the city, was it right that this target is still referenced in the RLDP. The Director stated that the Cabinet’s policy position has not been modified. However, a Cabinet report is anticipated during the summer which reviews the current data, successes to date and best practice around the UK. · A Member asked whether the authority is waiting for the Welsh Government to amend Part L of the building regulations (relating to conservation of fuel and power) or was the authority being more proactive. The Head of Planning stated that a planning application that was compliant with building regulations would not be refused but developers are encouraged to go beyond current regulations. The Council, in its own development schemes, go beyond current regulations and set exemplary standards. It was suggested that, by going beyond current regulations, these examples have affected neither profitability or viability. · Responding to a comment regarding transport in the city, the Director stated that transport policy is addressed through other policies. · A Member asked if the Planning Inspectorate would raise concerns about proposed transportation infrastructure projects such as Cardiff Parkway and the Eastern Bay Link that are reference in the RLDP. The Head of Planning stated that the location of those projects have been carried forward from the existing LDP. · A Member asked officers to elaborate on the positive impacts of the plan. The Head of Planning state that the RDLP was a plan for growth and any new developments will be sustainable and accessible. There will also be provision for delivering the affordable homes that are needed. · A Member asked how the RLDP would address monitoring and enforcement of new developments given the current constraints within the Enforcement Team. The Head of Planning stated that planning is a permissive regime and its is assumed that developers will comply with planning conditions. If developers do not then the authority will always investigate. · The Head of Planning stated that the RLDP is a plan which considered the needs of communities and within that context is the need for development. · A Member referred to the additional policies contained within the RLDP which strengthen inclusive design in developments. The Member stated that a scrutiny committee recommendation regarding secure cycle storage suggested that cycle storage should have usability standards and should exclude the use of upright cycle storage racks. However, Section H5 of the RLDP does not specifically capture this recommendation. Officers were asked whether the expectation is that this would be addressed in Supplementary Planning Guidance. The Head of Planning stated that the issue has been included in the RLDP, having not been addressed in the current LDP and the policy was appropriate as written standards in a policy document may have the unintended consequences of being challenged and excluded from the document. Officers considered that the policy should also retain some flexibility to incorporate cycle storage solutions that were appropriate for the type of property in question. The Member asked whether the policy should, therefore, reference guidance issued by Shared Regulatory Services on this subject. The Head of Planning stated that the RLDP makes multiple references to guidance from other bodies and the Member was strongly recommended to respond to the consultation as it would be possible to amend the wording to make reference to the work of Shared Regulatory Services. · Officers were asked to comment on how the RLDP supports masterplanning and placemaking, specifically within smaller geographical areas, and whether it facilitates neighbouring candidates sites being viewed in a coherent way with an emphasis on maximising opportunities for improving the long-term well-being of communities. The Director stated that the RLDP has an absolute commitment to developing placemaking quality and the benefits that can accrue for the wider community. Small schemes are required to look at the immediate area around the site. For larger schemes there is a masterplanning process. Placemaking plans provide an opportunity for the existing community to engage in a process for prioritising community amenities. · Members sought assurance that figures for the level of growth, particularly housing completions, outlined in the plan were robust. The Head of Planning stated that the projections used differ from the current LDP. The figures include greenfield sites that have been carried forward from the existing LDP, sites that have been part implemented and recently approved sites. Brownfield completions are currently meeting the projected level of growth. The Head of Planning considered the growth figures to be realistic and achievable. · A Member stressed the need for the RLDP to protect employment land. RESOLVED : That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.
No urgent items.
The next meetings are scheduled as follows: Environmental – Tuesday 25 February 2025 10:00am Performance Review and Policy – Wednesday 26 February 2025 10:00am
Rhaid i gynghorwyr ddweud pan fydd ganddyn nhw gysylltiad personol â rhywbeth sy'n cael ei drafod, fel swydd, eiddo neu aelod o'r teulu. Mae buddiant sy'n rhagfarnu yn ddigon cryf i'r cynghorydd adael yr ystafell fel arfer a pheidio â chymryd rhan.
Caiff datganiadau eu darllen o'r cofnodion unwaith y byddan nhw wedi'u cyhoeddi.
Yn rhestru cynghorwyr presennol y cyngor yn unig. Nid yw aelodau cyfetholedig, swyddogion a chyn-gynghorwyr yn cael eu dangos.