Agenda item

Report of Councillor Canniford (attached)

Councillor Canniford presented the report.  He advised members that the consultation on which the report was based was on the council’s own land and bringing it forward for development for homes and jobs.  He stressed that the consultation carried out by the council was as a landowner and not as the local planning authority. 

He noted that the council as landowner had more flexibility in influencing the type and affordability of homes that could be built in comparison to that which was developer-led.  He added that all local ward members and parish and town councils has been consulted as part of the process and acknowledged that there was strong opposition to some sites which was recognised in the report’s recommendations.

He offered his thanks to officers and the people of North Somerset who had contributed to the consultation and highlighted in response to the public speaker that section 3.26 of the report noted that no development could take place at Fryth Way unless the equivalent or better facilities could be provided in close proximity to the existing site.

Motion: a motion to amend the report’s recommendations was moved by Councillor Charles and seconded by Councillor Shopland that the only future consultation on the Downside site in Portishead would be with the town council on the purchase of site for amenity use at amenity rates and not for development. 

The amendment to the motion was debated by members.  During the debate, members were informed that Portishead’s housing stock had increased by the largest amount (60%) in the district over the last 20 years without any corresponding increase in supportive infrastructure.  It was felt that the site should be removed from the plan on the basis of its environmental value and to protect it for the use by Portishead residents.

Members also noted however, that the report stated that nothing would happen without further consultation.  Additionally, this was an issue that all parishes were facing and that planning for growth needed to be considered from a district wide perspective and not from individual parish viewpoints.  It was highlighted that members needed to have faith in the process which involved ongoing consultation with ward members and local communities.

Named Vote requested under Standing Order 23

For the motion: (13)

Marc Aplin, Nigel Ashton, Peter Bryant, John Cato, Caritas Charles, Sarah Codling, Andy Cole, Nicola Holland, Marcia Pepperall, Lisa Pilgrim, David Shopland, Tim Snaden, Roz Willis

Against the Motion (21):

Steve Bridger, Mark Canniford, Ashley Cartman, Caroline Cherry, James Clayton, Peter Crew, John Crockford-Hawley, Ciaran Cronnelly, Catherine Gibbons, Wendy Griggs, Karin Haverson, Steve Hogg, Huw James, Patrick Keating, Stuart McQuillan, Phil Neve, Robert Payne, Bridget Petty, Mike Solomon, James Tonkin, Richard Westwood

Abstentions (5)

Mike Bird, John Ley-Morgan, Ian Parker, Terry Porter, Richard Tucker

The amendment to the motion was lost.

Members then debated the substantive motion in the report making reference to the following points: that further meaningful consultation on all sites and options discussions were held; that requests to remove sites from the scope of development be considered; how would the relocation of Nailsea Football Club be funded should this be necessary; that residents were attached to local green spaces and that past agreements in relation to these should be honoured; that further site specific consultations would be undertaken to understand concerns and try to overcome objections where possible; that as owner of the sites in question, the council had greater freedom to find imaginative solutions to the housing crisis which meant that 3,000 residents were seeking social or affordable housing; there was concern that reports being brought to council were now so large that the detail was being lost; that the focus of new housing should be on those supporting sustainability, low carbon impact and reduced car usage and that clear parameters needed to be laid out for residents in any future consultations.

In response to members’ questions, Councillor Canniford confirmed that no decisions on any of the sites referred to in recommendation 3(ii) had been taken as yet, that a further report would be coming to members regarding Castlewood in January 2023 and that any costs relating to the moving of Nailsea Football Club would be funded from development revenues.

Motion: moved by Councillor Canniford and seconded by Councillor Solomon and

Resolved: that

1.     Council noted the outcomes of the consultation on development sites held April – June 2022, including the detailed information about response numbers and reasons for supporting or opposing development that are detailed in Appendix A to the report

2.     Council re-endorsed the agreed objectives for the Development Strategy and Programme, as set out in paragraph 3.12. of the report

3.     Council agreed recommendations in relation to individual sites as follows:

                                                                   i.          Weston Town Centre sites / Parklands phases 2 & 3 / Castlewood: to continue work to promote and bring these sites forward for development with a focus on maximising affordable housing and sustainability / low carbon development.

                                                                  ii.          (ii) Churchill Avenue (Clevedon) / Oldmixon Recreation Ground (Weston) / Downside (Portishead) / Fryth Way (Nailsea) / Hutton Moor (Weston) / West Leigh (Backwell) / Hangstone Quarry (Clevedon): agreed that officers should engage further with ward members and local communities to explore issues and options in more detail, including options for partial development of sites, 100% affordable, self-build or community-led housing, and/or Town/Parish Council purchase of land.

                                                                iii.          Eastermead Farm (Banwell) / Grange Farm (Hutton) / Youngwood Lane (Nailsea): agreed that the council as landowner commence work to promote these sites for consideration through the Local Plan allocations process, and where appropriate enter into discussions with adjacent or interested landowners/developers interested in joint master planning, promotion or development of sites.

                                                                iv.          (iv) Car parks: agreed that work be undertaken with highways colleagues to identify any car parks that may potentially be suitable for development, where those car parks are underutilised, or where they may be suitable for development above parking.

4.     Council noted discussions on the possible disposal of the Nailsea library site, as set out in paragraph 3.30 of the report.