Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED – (1) T H A T the Replacement Local Development Plan revised Delivery Agreement be approved and submitted to Welsh Government for their formal approval. (2) T H A T the Deposit Replacement Local Development Plan and supporting documents, including the draft Green Infrastructure Strategy and draft Healthy Placemaking Supplementary Planning Guidance, be approved for public consultation. Reason for decisions (1&2) To approve the revisions to the Council’s revised Delivery Agreement and to enable public consultation of the Deposit in accordance with Regulation 17 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development Plan) (Wales) Regulations 2005 (as amended). January Special 6.45pm (JLT)
These were received from Councillors Naomi Marshallsea (Mayor) and Rhys Thomas.
Councillor Susan Lloyd-Selby declared a personal but not prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 3(a) as she was an Independent Member of Cardiff and Vale University Health Board which was a statutory consultee. Councillor Lloyd-Selby had dispensation from Standards Committee.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED – (1) T H A T the Replacement Local Development Plan revised Delivery Agreement be approved and submitted to Welsh Government for their formal approval. (2) T H A T the Deposit Replacement Local Development Plan and supporting documents, including the draft Green Infrastructure Strategy and draft Healthy Placemaking Supplementary Planning Guidance, be approved for public consultation. Reason for decisions (1&2) To approve the revisions to the Council’s revised Delivery Agreement and to enable public consultation of the Deposit in accordance with Regulation 17 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development Plan) (Wales) Regulations 2005 (as amended). January Special 6.45pm (JLT)
The Cabinet Member for Community Engagement, Equalities and Regulatory Services presented the report, which sought approval for consultation. She emphasised that this represented a significant milestone in shaping the future of the Vale of Glamorgan’s communities, ensuring sustainable growth and delivering the homes, jobs, and infrastructure the Council’s residents needed, and that it had been developed through a series of stages, with extensive engagement with stakeholders and residents throughout. January Special 6.45pm (JLT) She noted that the Deposit Plan built on previous work, setting out detailed policies that responded to the climate and nature emergencies, promoted placemaking, and improved the health and wellbeing of the Council’s residents, and identified some additional sites for housing that would help meet overall housing requirements and deliver affordable housing, as well as identifying land for other uses such as community facilities, retail, employment and active travel. She indicated that if approved, the Deposit Plan would move to the next formal stage, that this was not the final Plan, and this was seeking approval for a public consultation on the Plan to enable feedback from anyone who may be interested in sharing their views. She noted that representations would be considered and reported back to Full Council, before an Independent Examination of the RLDP by a PEDW Inspector, and reflected upon considerable discussion undertaken at Place Scrutiny, thanking the public speaker alongside Members who had written in to share their views. Councillor Haines felt that data accuracy was important, and that the document contained several factually inaccurate statements, including assumptions about St Athan’s train station, where he indicated that there was currently no train station and no proposals from Transport for Wales to create one. Councillor Mahoney indicated that the Plan detailed infrastructure being provided, with a large emphasis on Section 106 agreements, but expressed that in general there was a lack of infrastructure in certain areas within the Vale of Glamorgan and sought to understand if the Health Board had been consulted to understand potential demand for GP practices for example. He stated that he felt the agreed infrastructure from development never appeared, and there needed to be additional consideration and details surrounding capacity within the health sector to support population changes. Councillor Ernest stated that if providing additional housing, there needed be to appropriate infrastructure otherwise development would not be sustainable. He noted the proposals for Dinas Powys and expressed concern around the potential impact upon congestion on roads within the area as a previous proposal for a by- pass had not progressed. Councillor Dr. Johnson congratulated planning staff as the Plan was a result of years of work and drew attention to the new timetable with engagement extended to 2027 due to the Planning Inspector needing to review and believed there were limited opportunities for public engagement and political parties may campaign upon the basis of scrapping the Plan. He indicated that the area was within South East Wales growth zone, and that there could easily be an argument around the need for housing being a cause or consequence of demand, and that it was important to get the right number of homes, in the right size in the right places, particularly considering the aging population and the need for single dwellings opposed to larger houses favoured by developers. He further sought to understand how the Council would respond to the consultation to ensure that it was a listening exercise. Councillor Haines stated that whilst they were aware of housing policy being devolved, that large scale development in green areas had not been mentioned January Special 6.45pm (JLT) within the Labour Party manifesto, and asked all Councillors to acknowledge the need for the Plan to be evidence based as previously identified. Councillor Charles indicated that they were opposed to the proposals, particularly the development at Weycock Cross as they felt this was encroaching upon rural areas. The Councillor further expressed concerns around additional elements such as traffic elements and the lack of supporting infrastructure in relation to this site. Councillor Campbell queried as to how the Council would ensure that the public were adequately engaged as they may be disillusioned with the process based on previous experiences, reflecting that groups such as older people may be digitally excluded and that it was incumbent upon all involved to raise awareness this consultation was happening, including those who may be in support of the Plan. Councillor Morgan agreed and emphasised that the role of Councillors was to respond on behalf of residents and promote within their communities to try and ensure representative feedback. He expressed concerns that local politics should not be dominated by party stances when considering this Plan. The Cabinet Member for Neighbourhood and Building Services indicated that a Replacement Local Development Plan gave the Council teeth and helped avoid speculative development, and that a structure and framework was needed to underpin this. He encouraged the community to participate, and shared that he felt it was incumbent upon Members to speak to residents as it would have an impact upon all residents. Councillor Hooper stated that they were not confident in the engagement process, that Councillors would vote across political lines, and that this would impact people in that they would feel they were not being listened too. Councillor Carroll believed the Plan to be flawed, that any development would exacerbate infrastructure challenges, and that it would not be appropriate to go out to consultation with flaws. He noted that overdevelopment was due to unsustainable population growth, with a highly mobile population in the area reflecting wider trends around migration. He further shared that he believed that pressures on housing stock due to the commitment to the resettlement programme and other policy areas such as Nation of Sanctuary were also impacting upon this area. Councillor Asbrey indicated that proposals surrounding Dinas Powys were a sore subject within the local community, as they were worried about proposed homes in a substantial development, as the area was only served by one road, and that there needed to be safe and accessible roads, including wider pavements. She further shared that the local GP practice had to accept approximately 1,000 new patients due to the closures of the practice in Penarth, which had had an impact upon services, and that there was a need to consider the impact of potential flooding as a result of potential new developments. The Leader noted that the Plan had been in development for years, and that infrastructure such as schools were being developed to support communities. She emphasised that the Health Board controlled their facilities, and that Cabinet lobbied January Special 6.45pm (JLT) as much as possible to improve health services in the area. She also noted that there was funding for a feasibility study to look into a transport interchange as part of the Regional Transport Plan, and that the Council continued to lobby Transport for Wales to improve transport in all the Vale of Glamorgan, with emphasis upon those in rural areas. She reflected that Council was discussing areas that had already been considered at previous meetings, that the outcomes of the consultation would be presented to Council when available, and the impact of pushing back now would be negative to the Development Plan. She further emphasised the need for an opportunity for the public to be able to provide their views. Councillor Penn noted that when considering infrastructure within the Plan, there were no alternative proposals from opposition Councillors and reflected that the Plan sought to help address the housing shortage, and that the Council should listen to the consultation feedback, whether it be positive or negative. He stated that the Dinas Powys bypass development was not taken forward due to the impact on neighbouring communities and that it was imperative that good quality housing be built as the environment people grew up in had an impact upon longer term life outcomes. Councillor Perry stated that he believed Section 106 agreements to be unbalanced, with a need to look at how the Council collected and spent this money. He indicated that he felt infrastructure needed to be developed first including public transport and the removal of cars, which was behind European counterparts. He also noted the potential impacts to increased traffic at Culverhouse Cross, and the services must be improved before housing to reduce the dependency on cars. He further shared that there was a potential environmental and ecological impact in farming and rural areas due to the potential impacts of development and the erosion of topsoil. Councillor Franks expressed that there had been a substantial number of views surrounding the Plan, and that the opinions had been ignored, including the opposition towards the Eastbrook site, and did not feel that the process would respond to the feedback provided. The Cabinet Member for Community Engagement, Equalities and Regulatory Services thanked Members for their comments and hoped that all would be contributing their views to the consultation. She emphasised the Plan currently struck the right balance between supporting people, the wider environment, and responding to identified needs, and with consultation also being part of her Cabinet portfolio, she wanted to ensure that the Council reached as many as possible in understanding their views, including engaging with disadvantaged groups. A Recorded Vote took place as follows: Member For Against Abstain Anne Asbrey √ Julie Aviet √ January Special 6.45pm (JLT) Member For Against Abstain Gareth Ball √ Rhiannon Birch √ Bronwen Brooks √ Gillian Bruce √ Ian Buckley √ Lis Burnett √ Samantha Campbell √ George Carroll √ Christine Cave √ Janice Charles √ Amelia Collins √ Marianne Cowpe √ Brandon Dodd √ Pamela Drake √ Vincent Driscoll √ Anthony Ernest √ Robert Fisher √ Christopher Franks √ Wendy Gilligan √ Russell Godfrey √ Emma Goodjohn √ Ewan Goodjohn √ Stephen Haines √ January Special 6.45pm (JLT) Member For Against Abstain Sally Hanks √ William Hennessy √ Nic Hodges √ Mark Hooper √ Catherine Iannucci-Williams √ Gwyn John √ Ian Johnson √ Susan Lloyd-Selby √ Belinda Loveluck-Edwards √ Julie Lynch-Wilson √ Kevin Mahoney √ Michael Morgan √ Jayne Norman √ Helen Payne √ Elliot Penn √ Sandra Perkes √ Ian Perry √ Joanna Protheroe √ Ruba Sivagnanam √ Carys Stallard √ Neil Thomas √ Steffan Wiliam √ Margaret Wilkinson √ January Special 6.45pm (JLT) Member For Against Abstain Eddie Williams √ Mark Wilson √ Nicholas Wood √ Total 27 23 1 RESOLVED – (1) T H A T the Replacement Local Development Plan revised Delivery Agreement be approved and submitted to Welsh Government for their formal approval. (2) T H A T the Deposit Replacement Local Development Plan and supporting documents, including the draft Green Infrastructure Strategy and draft Healthy Placemaking Supplementary Planning Guidance, be approved for public consultation. Reason for decisions (1&2) To approve the revisions to the Council’s revised Delivery Agreement and to enable public consultation of the Deposit in accordance with Regulation 17 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development Plan) (Wales) Regulations 2005 (as amended). January Special 6.45pm (JLT)
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.