(a)

Councillors Jordan, Dr Salter and Nicholson called the decision in for the following reasons -

?

the aspirations of the City Council to grow the Plymouth population, as recommended by David Mackay, had been promoted through the planning policies contained in the Local Plan First Deposit, the Local Development Framework and now the emerging ‘Plymouth Plan’. The updated housing needs assessment had influenced the housing growth target contained in the Plymouth Plan Part 1 agreed by Cabinet on 9 December 2014 for public consultation. Site specific proposals for housing would be published in the summer/autumn 2015 and land owners had been requested to submit proposed sites to the Head of Development Planning for consideration and future consultation;

?

despite this straight forward process, which all other land owners had to comply with, Sections 12 and 13 of the Executive Decision did not refer to any consultation with Councillor Vincent who had responsibility for the Plymouth Plan and strategic planning.  Similarly Councillor Vincent did not appear to have been consulted over the Surplus Property Declaration Minor Property Interest Pro-forma for this site. As the Cabinet Member for Environment with responsibility for Parks and Open Spaces, Councillor Vincent had not indicated his justification for agreeing to the loss of public open space by declaring the site ‘surplus property’;

?

Plympton Councillors had been fully engaged with the Directorate for Place in proposing alternative housing sites in Plympton where development could take place on previously developed sites with a far higher provision of housing and accommodating different housing tenures including affordable housing;

?

no evidence had been provided in the decision documentation that representations in respect of the use of the former Imerys site, Coypool, Matchroom site, Colebrook and the former Plympton Hospital site, Market Road had been considered by Councillor Lowry or the Land and Property Team as part of the Council’s strategy to provide more homes;

we consider that the City Council must be ‘joined up’ in the development of our City and that dialogue between the Land and Property Department and Development Planning was essential in ensuring the City was properly developed;

on this basis alone, the decision should be referred back for further consideration with all relevant Departments of the City Council;

?

Councillor Lowry was also considering the disposal of other land in Plympton again in Chaddlewood and at Newnham with these sites projected to be suitable for up to 600 homes. Given the cumulative impact of housing development on infrastructure such as schools, roads, public open space and health facilities, Councillor Lowry should publish all his proposal simultaneously so all the impacts could be assessed.  To release individual sites as was being proposed, would create greater infrastructure issues for the Council which may  ...  view the full minutes text for item 136.