A period of 30 minutes has been set aside for members of the public to ask questions on matters considered at the last meeting and set out in the minutes or on the agenda for tonight’s meeting.
Minutes:
The following questions were receive by three members of the public attending
Danielle Davis asked Before adopting the Simister Bowlee Development Framework, can officers confirm whether any strategic assessment has been undertaken demonstrating that the proposed development can be accommodated within existing highway and drainage networks during the first five years of delivery? If such an assessment exists, where is it published within the evidence base; if not, why is the Council satisfied that the SPD provides a robust framework for development?
Councillor O’Brien responded In terms of evidence to date, the frameworks are largely reliant on the evidence documents that were produced at the Public Examination stage, which sought to assess the cumulative impact of all of the site allocations over the nine Greater Manchester districts. This included strategic evidence relating to highways and other infrastructure, with the Inspectors concluding that existing or new infrastructure could accommodate the level of growth proposed
This conclusion did not just relate to the first five years of the plan, but the full proposed development within the plan period.
The evidence produced for that plan was strategic and the Inspectors concluded that all of the proposed development in the employment and housing supply could be accommodated within the geographical area. This included highways and other infrastructure. The strategic evidence supporting the PfE can be found on the Combined Authority’s web pages.
The Council is satisfied that this evidence is proportionate to where the sites are in the planning process, given the fact the frameworks are largely providing clarity on policy requirements and setting out the future evidence that will be needed to address detailed issues. It is a robust document because adopting it will give the local planning authorities greater control to shape and influence development across the sites.
For example, future planning applications will need to be accompanied by site wide Transport Assessments that will assess the impact of the development on the highway network and to identify appropriate mitigation measures are put in place. Likewise, appropriate measures will need to be put in place to deal with flood or drainage issues.
James Tierney asked The councils own consultation report acknowledges there is no public foul sewer capacity serving the area. Can the cabinet confirm whether united utilities has identified costed and funded a foul drainage solution capable of serving All 1550 proposed homes
Councillor O’Brien replied Wastewater network reinforcement for large development sites is assessed in stages, with clear responsibilities for funding.
Broadly, on-site foul drainage infrastructure (such as pipes within the development and connections to the network) is the responsibility of the developer. Off-site reinforcement to the public sewer network, where required to accommodate additional flows, may be delivered by United Utilities and is funded through the infrastructure charging regime paid by developers when connecting to the water and wastewater network.
For allocations such as Simister and Bowlee, a fully costed and defined foul drainage solution is not established at this stage; instead, this is progressed once a foul drainage strategy is prepared.
It is understood that engagement between the site promoter and United Utilities is underway, in preparation for future planning applications – and in accordance with the requirements set out in the Development Framework.
This engagement will enable United Utilities to assess the impact on the existing network and determine whether any off-site reinforcement is necessary, alongside consideration of how any such requirements would be prioritised and aligned with the timing of development.
Lindsay Bothwell
asked for the record, the Council is currently
including approximately 90 dwellings from the Simister Bowlee allocation (JPA1.2) within its five-year
housing land supply.
?
Can officers identify the specific strategic evidence or assessments that were relied upon to conclude that this level of delivery is deliverable within five years in infrastructure terms, particularly in relation to highways and drainage constraints, and confirm where this assessment is recorded within the evidence base supporting the Development Framework/SPD?
In addition, can officers confirm how the material considerations arising from known infrastructure constraints, and the revision of the assumed capacity from approximately 170 dwellings to approximately 90 dwellings, were assessed through the plan-making process, and where that assessment is documented?
?For clarity, this question relates to the strategic evidence base
for deliverability assumptions at plan-making stage, not detailed
design or planning application matters.
Councillor O’Brien responded the reference to 90 homes has been taken from the Council’s Five Year Supply Statement 2025 which provides an assessment of the amount of housing that is expected to be delivered on identified sites across the Borough over the next five years. This figure represents an indicative snapshot in time based on the information available at the point the assessment was undertaken. The figure is subject to change and does not form part of the Simister Bowlee Development Framework.
The 2025 five year supply position was based on indications from the site promoters that the first housing completions will be within 5 years, and is therefore in accordance with the NPPF definition of “deliverable”. To be considered deliverable, sites for housing should be available now, offer a suitable location for development now, and be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within 5 years.
There is no requirement for the five year supply to be backed up by the full level of evidence on highways and drainage constraints that may be expected to accompany a planning application, and as a result there is no such evidence sitting behind the 90 dwelling figure.
For this site, the assumption is based on progress being made towards the submission of a planning application, the developers’ delivery intentions and anticipated start and build-out rates. The figure of 90 units is simply an indicative scenario and is subject to change.
The infrastructure on the site will be developed before or alongside housing on this site. The type and nature of that infrastructure will relate to a phasing strategy that will reflect update evidence on the site.
The 2025 five year supply has been updated from previous versions to reflect the updated position at the time it was published. The amount of development from the site within the five year supply has been reduced down as more information has come forward to indicate that less development would be delivered from previous assessments.
The assessment now reflects the fact that the site does not have an adopted SPD as yet, nor a planning application submitted and also builds in sufficient time for such an application to be developed, submitted and determined by the planning authorities. There would then be a period of time (assuming permission was granted) before units would actually be completed once the site commences development on infrastructure and ground works.
The next five year supply update will be the 2026 version, and this will take account of the most recent information on the site and the trajectory for that five year period may change again. Assuming the frameworks get approved, a new housing trajectory may be appropriate within that five year period.
Five year supply considerations did not form part of the PfE examination, but it was the wider supply that was considered in terms of ensuring that sufficient land for housing was identified to meet the Government’s housing targets.