Agenda item

Report of Councillor S Pickering, Portfolio Holder for Environment and Place

RESOLVED –

(1)      That Cabinet noted the content of the report and approved the detailed responses outlined at Appendix 1 as forming the Council’s formal response to the consultation, subject to stronger reference to the risks of speculative development in answer to question 7.

(2)      That Cabinet authorised the Assistant Director of Planning in consultation with the Leader and Portfolio Holder to exercise delegated authority to make further detailed amendments to the responses.

(3)      That Cabinet agreed proposals to consider in more detail a timetable for a review of the Local Plan (in discussion with the Local Plan Working Group) in light of the implications of the proposals for housing numbers and plan making and that this be brought back to a subsequent Cabinet meeting.

REASONS FOR DECISION – It is considered important that the Council makes informed comments and raises concerns and comments whether further work is required on emerging national planning policy and this will have a direct impact on how we determine applications for development in the shorter term and how we develop a Plan that meets the needs of the district in the longer term.

OTHER OPTIONS CONSIDERED AND REJECTED – The alternative is to not comment on the consultation material. This was rejected on the basis that it is important that the Council is aware of the implications of the Governments proposed changes to national planning guidance and that we take the opportunity to inform the Government of the likely impacts of their proposals on the district and seek to influence policy development at a national level.

In terms of a review of the Council’s Local Plan, one alternative is to do nothing and await the implementation of new planning guidance. This was rejected on the basis that significant changes are imminent and to do nothing would put the Council at greater risk of speculative development for an additional extended period of time.

Please note that this was not a Key Decision and so can be implemented with immediate effect by officers.

Cabinet heard that the paper had been drafted before the recent Extraordinary Council meeting (due to publication requirements). The key message was that there are no transitional arrangements proposed within the current consultation to bridge the gap between the current and the new housing targets. It was highlighted that the proposed revisions to national policy would put the Local Plan at risk and leave the Council open to speculative development, because we would no longer be able to demonstrate a five year supply of housing land.

Members debated the key issues arising from the consultation. The conclusion of those discussions was that the consultation response needed to highlight the importance of transition arrangements to ensure that the government’s stated objective of the process being ‘Plan led’ is not undermined by speculative development and the time taken to establish regional strategies. It was questioned if allowances were being made for Districts which had previously overperformed against their Local Plan target. Cabinet agreed to the officer recommendation that transitional arrangements could be awarded to Councils on the basis of demonstrable progress towards the development of a Local Plan to meet the new target. They did however specifically request that reference be made to the detrimental impact of speculative development in answer to question 7 of the consultation.  

Members confirmed that people should be assured that there was no intent to concrete over greenbelt, through seeking a more specific definition of what would constitute ‘grey belt’ land in the Council’s response to the consultation. Additionally, members asked if the District would need to take unmet needs in other areas. It was clarified that any authority with greenbelt would have to go through a process to make it clear that they could not meet their own needs first and that any cross boundary arrangements would be a negotiated process. Reference was made to the Statement of Common Ground process to demonstrate that there is no automatic requirement for one area to accept the need of another. The proposed changes to national policy would also place greater demand on Councils to justify that they cannot meet their own need even after considering Green Belt release.     

Cabinet confirmed that the Council acknowledged the difficulties posed by a housing shortage, particularly affordable housing (including within this district) and that that we need to contribute to addressing this situation. However, this process should allow local people to have a say on how their district develops.

Cabinet sought clarification on the concern that public participation was going to be reduced as a result of the proposed changes. They were advised that, whilst the consultation refers to the need for Local Plans to be in place and for people to have a say on ‘how’ not ‘if’ development occurs in their area, this was not a change from the current system. The process of allocating sites in a Local Plan and the procedures around how planning applications are to be determined are not proposed to be changed by this consultation. 

Cabinet agreed that the headlines for changing housing numbers were clear, with the current system being based on a calculation of population projections and an affordability element based on house prices and income. The new system would replace the population projection part of the calculation with a stock based calculation, proposing an increase above current housing stock by 0.8% annually.

Members also considered the proposed changes to affordable housing requirements on development sites and the matter of planning fees which are also within the scope of the consultation. In relation to the proposed changes to application fees, Cabinet heard that the government was seeking views on how the true costs of processing planning applications could be recovered by Councils. One of the questions posed by the consultation is whether fees could be set at a local level as opposed to nationally. This risks around regional competition were highlighted, with officer advice being that this risk is avoided if fees are set nationally. A significant increase in householder fees is proposed, which would mean for over double the current fee for these applications.

RESOLVED –

(1)      That Cabinet noted the content of the report and approved the detailed responses outlined at Appendix 1 as forming the Council’s formal response to the consultation, subject to stronger reference to the risks of speculative development in answer to question 7.

(2)      That Cabinet authorised the Assistant Director of Planning in consultation with the Leader and Portfolio Holder to exercise delegated authority to make further detailed amendments to the responses.

(3)      That Cabinet agreed proposals to consider in more detail a timetable for a review of the Local Plan (in discussion with the Local Plan Working Group) in light of the implications of the proposals for housing numbers and plan making and that this be brought back to a subsequent Cabinet meeting.

REASONS FOR DECISION – It is considered important that the Council makes informed comments and raises concerns and comments whether further work is required on emerging national planning policy and this will have a direct impact on how we determine applications for development in the shorter term and how we develop a Plan that meets the needs of the district in the longer term.

OTHER OPTIONS CONSIDERED AND REJECTED – The alternative is to not comment on the consultation material. This was rejected on the basis that it is important that the Council is aware of the implications of the Governments proposed changes to national planning guidance and that we take the opportunity to inform the Government of the likely impacts of their proposals on the district and seek to influence policy development at a national level.

In terms of a review of the Council’s Local Plan, one alternative is to do nothing and await the implementation of new planning guidance. This was rejected on the basis that significant changes are imminent and to do nothing would put the Council at greater risk of speculative development for an additional extended period of time.