Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence

Apologies were received from Cllr Robin Williams (IACC), Cllr Richard Owain Jones (IACC), Cllr. Nicola Roberts (IACC), Cllr Bryan Owen (IACC), Cllr John Griffith (IACC), Cllr. John Pughe Roberts (GC), Cllr John Brynmor Hughes (GC)

To receive any declaration of personal interest.

None to note

To note any items that are a matter of urgency in the view of the Chairman for consideration.

No urgent items were received.

The Chairman shall propose that the minutes of the meeting of this committee held 26.10.2018 be signed as a true record.

The minutes of the Committee held on 26 October 2018 were accepted as a true record.

To submit the Planning Policy Manager’s report

Nia Haf Davies presented the report and the appendices, which contained an amended consultation draft of the Supplementary Planning Guidance (consultation draft) – 'Maintaining and Creating Unique Communities'. She noted that the decision of this Committee in April had led to appointing a partnership to undertake a critical appraisal of the consultation draft Guidance. She drew attention to the qualification and experience of both companies, noting that Owain Wyn (Burum) was present to discuss the work (Appendix 1) and to answer questions. Nia drew attention to the type of changes needed in order to be able to implement the recommendations by Burum and Cwmni Iaith. She noted that the Joint Planning Policy Unit and the Planning Services were entirely supportive of the recommendations of the companies and the changes. While going through Appendix 3, she drew attention to the main changes which improved the flow of the document and gave more clarity about expectations linked with the process of giving consideration to the Welsh language from the screening stage to the decision-making stage.

Owain Wyn drew the Committee's attention to the following:

i. That they had adapted tests that planning inspectors would use to assess the

soundness of the development plan;

ii. That they had identified improvements which would mean that the linguistic

assessment is more similar to other forms of assessments (environmental and

business) which looked at risk (not danger), the likelihood of the risk, and how serious the risk is;

iii. That it was linguistic assessments that were needed for Statements and a report for Impact Assessments;

iv. That the need to undertake public consultation prior to submitting a planning

application for 'major' developments was an important step because it would mean

that it would give applicants a clear opportunity for this type of development to

engage with communities and others prior to submitting planning applications

regarding the nature of the development and its impact on communities, including

the Welsh language;

v. That the impact matrix was a visible method of reaching a conclusion about the impact of the development;

vi. More assessments would be a way of developing an evidence base and understanding about the field.

The Committee was reminded that scrutiny of the Guidance would happen in Gwynedd earlier than in Anglesey. She drew attention to the report of the Chair of Communities Scrutiny Committee Investigation Working Group (Appendix 2 and 2a) which referred to feedback received during the informal engagement period in 2016 regarding including Guidance on development and the Welsh language which currently existed in both Counties. She noted that the Working Group had requested a brief response to the matters raised at 3 that time. She referred to the draft response in column C and column Ch as a starting point, and that there was an opportunity for the Committee to enquire or make observations about the response prior to it being referred to the Working Group. Reference was made to the recommendations and in doing so, she  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

To submit a report from the Planning Policy Team Leader

A presentation by Bob Thomas highlighting the role of the Supplementary Planning Guidance and explaining the steps taken to date as part of the work of preparing the Guidance in question. It was noted that the Guidance, in draft form, had already been before the Panel in July this year. The amendments made to the Guidance following the input received during the Panel meeting and as a result of internal discussions since then were highlighted.

Matters raised:

·         What exactly was the definition of an affordable house?

Response:

·         A definition in terms of what was considered to be an affordable house was contained in National Planning Policy Guidance. Different considerations for different areas. Affordability was considered as 3.5 times the income of the residential unit. In terms of the need, consider which individuals were listed and assessed on the Tai Teg register.

Decision

Resolved to release the Supplementary Planning Guidance: Affordable Housing for a public consultation period.