Agenda item

The report outlines some of the potential implications of the proposed changes to the planning system for the district and seeks to agree the Council’s response to the consultation.

The Service Lead – Strategic Planning and Development Management gave a brief overview of the problems with the current planning system and the government’s vision for the system as detailed in the White Paper.

 

Members noted the consultation seeks to focus on net gain rather than harm, to move democracy forward in the planning process to give neighbourhoods and communities a more meaningful voice, help businesses to expand, support developers and promote improvements to the countryside and prosperity in our villages, towns and cities.

 

The Service Lead – Strategic Planning and Development Management referred Members to the three main pillars detailed in the consultation.

 

Pillar One - Planning for Development which sets out the key proposals relevant to land use plan making, including setting out a national set target of 300,000 homes per annum, removing the 5 year land supply and duty to co-operate, identifying growth renewal and protected land areas and updating the NPPF so that it becomes the primary source of development control guidance.

 

The Service Lead Strategic Planning and Development Management addressed a number of key issues which included:

·         It was unclear how local constraints were to be taken into account and by whom;

·         A lack of strategy for where growth is accommodated across England;

·         The calculator only focused on growth where it previously occurred and where the affordability gap is at its greatest without consideration as to whether or not that is the appropriate response or a clear methodology for doing so.

 

Members noted that although simplified local plans were to be welcomed it was unclear exactly how the 13 months process could be achieved and it appeared to show less engagement with our communities on planning issues and also the welcome of the single sustainability test but lacked detail about how this would operate and how it would differ from the current system.

 

Pillar two – Planning for beautiful and sustainable places sets out to improve the quality of new development coming forward and proposes a national model design code and a revised manual for streets to complement the existing national design guide and for each authority to have a chief officer for design and place making

 

Two key issues had been raised:

·         Although a greater emphasis on design was clearly welcomed the upfront design coding appeared to be in conflict with a 30 months’ timescale for local plan preparation.  Members noted for local plans design coding was time consuming and to try and complete this within a 30 months’ timescale was problematic;

·         A significant lack of resource issues.

 

Pillar Three – Planning for infrastructure and connected places.  Sets out to improve the way in which contributions towards infrastructure associated with new development is made, to improve certainty and transparency by introducing a new fixed rate infrastructure level which would replace the S106 legal agreements and community infrastructure levy.

 

The key issues raised included:

·         The lack of detail in terms of the new infrastructure levy and how that would work and whether it would achieve the benefits that the consultation had suggested;

·         It had the potential to be as complicated as the Community Infrastructure Levy;

·         It was unclear what the consequences might be in delivering affordable housing.

 

Members welcomed the increased flexibility on spend but noted it did raise the question about whether or not it would use substantially more funding for infrastructure especially as there was a massive shortfall in funding for infrastructure.

 

The Service Lead – Strategic Planning and Development Management referred to the final section of the consultation about how these changes would be delivered and addresses some key elements:

·         Planning fees to continue to be set on a national basis;

·         A review to identify and eliminate outdated regulations;

·         A new performance framework is to be established.

 

The Chairman thanked the Service Lead – Planning Strategy Development Management for his report and welcomed comments from non-committee members.

 

Points raised by non-committee members included:

·         The forensic, astute and well written draft response was welcomed;

·         Clarification was sought on the local plan and timings and a suggestion was raised to be a bit more detailed in that response emphasising that 30 months is too much of a stretch;  In response the Chairman advised it would depend on how much consultation the government have set for us to undertake within our local plan which will dictate how long it will take for a local plan to come through;

·         It was an absolute disgrace that there was no mention of social housing.  A suggestion was made to include an objection to the fact that there was no provision for social housing;

·         A suggestion was made for members to support the improvement of digital planning as it is clear the public want access to documents.

 

The Chairman welcomed comments from committee members.

 

·         Clarification was sought on page 64 para. 4.60. It mentions that energy efficiency standards potentially will be taken away from local authority areas and handed over to a national planning framework.  In response the Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management advised building control would have greater powers with less control through the planning process.  This approach was detailed in the Future Homes consultation from earlier in the year to which a government response is awaited; 

·         Concerns were raised on overturns and reference was made to question 7b on page 42;

·         Concerns were raised on the abolition of the current need for sustainability assessment and addressed the point of developing sustainable communities, not just houses but other services too, educational services, employment services, economical services and leisure services.  This seems to have been abolished in the new proposal;

·         Concerns were raised about the removal of the duty to co-operate;

·         It was pointed out the fundamental point of the paper was that it was a massive centralisation;

·         Concerns were raised to the answer to question 9a on page 49 and suggested the answer should be ‘no’ because it is undemocratic and lacks scrutiny.  The Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management advised that he did not have these concerns as the process would ensure there would be appropriate scrutiny and engagement through the local plan preparation process but was happy to revise the text if Members were concerned;

·         It was commented that it was important to answer yes to question 9a because the work for the local plan would either prove or disprove these allegations instead of going through it at a later date with an unfeasible application.

 

Councillor Ian Thomas proposed the following amendment to the motion which was seconded by Councillor Paul Arnott.

 

The Committee note the report and agree the proposed responses to the consultation and we express our concern of the proposed over centralisation of the planning process.

 

The seconder of the motion, Councillor Paul Arnott proposed the following amendment to the motion.

 

The Committee note the report and agree the proposed responses to the consultation and we express our concerns over the lack of consideration for social housing and the lack of scrutiny resulting from the proposed centralization of planning powers.

 

The proposer of the motion, Councillor Ian Thomas confirmed he was in agreement and said it was a balance between not moving away from making this salient fundamental point.

 

Councillor Nick Hookway emphasised the importance of raising our serious concerns about the lack of scrutiny.  Councillor Mike Allen supported Councillor Hookway’s concerns as a proposal.

 

The proposer, Councillor Thomas advised he was not prepared to accept the amendment to the motion, not because he did not agree with it but because he did not know the views of the other Members.

 

The Chairman requested Members to vote on a straw poll to show their support for Councillor Hookway’s proposed amendment to question 9a in relation to the answer should be no as the results would be undemocratic and lack scrutiny.  The straw poll was put to committee with a clear majority of yes and 1 abstention.

 

The proposer, Councillor Thomas and the seconder, Councillor Arnott acknowledged the support from Members.

 

The Chairman requested that a vote take place on the following amended motion.

 

Members to note the report and agree the proposed responses to the consultation with the response to question 9a to be No as undemocratic and due to lack of scrutiny and we express our concern of the proposed over centralisation of the planning process and the committee also notes the lack of consideration for social housing and lack of scrutiny.

 

The amended motion was put to committee and was carried with a clear majority and 1 abstention.

 

RESOLVED:

The proposed responses to the consultation with the response to question 9a to be No as undemocratic and due to lack of scrutiny and we express our concern of the proposed over centralisation of the planning process and the committee also notes the lack of consideration for social housing and lack of scrutiny be noted and agreed.