Agenda item

1. The PPM introduced the Officer’s report and recommendation. Since the submission of the Local Plan the Inspector had been appointed and sought clarification on various issues. The PPM anticipated more questions would be raised in relation to other policy areas over the next few weeks leading into the examination hearings.

The PPM sought delegated authority to respond to the Planning Inspector in the first instance, and confirmed that he intended to take soundings from the Planning Portfolio holder when responding. In approving the recommendation, this would ensure that responses were made in a timely manner, and prevent the potential challenge that the Officer responding the Inspector did not have the proper authority to do so.

The PPM affirmed that the questions provided in Appendix A were supplied as demonstratives, and it was not asked that Members respond to the Inspectors questions supplied at this meeting.

2. Cllr J Toye considered the approach set out by the PPM to be sensible, noting that there was huge flux within planning presently including matters of Nutrient Neutrality which the Prime Minister had indicated may be revised. He stated he would like for the Working Party to be regularly updated as to the progress of the Local Plan, as appropriate. Cllr J Toye proposed acceptance of the Officer’s recommendation.

3. The PPM agreed that he would table a general standing item on the Local Plan for the Working Party.

4. Cllr P Heinrich asked, with respect of National Housing Target’s, what the current government position was.

5. The PPM advised that the Local Plan included 2 housing figures, a minimum figure based on the 2016 household forecast and a second higher figure which Officer’s argued the plan was capable of delivering.

The current requirement was that Councils should use the standard government methodology to calculate the minimum figure. NNDC did not use this methodology and so were at odds with the current government guidance. One of the emerging proposals in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill, presently undergoing consultation, was the removal of this requirement and wording added to the NPPF to include ‘unless exceptional circumstances apply’.

The PPM confirmed that the outcome of the consultation was not yet known, and it was uncertain what the future of housing targets would be. All Local Authorities were still working towards the central housing targets. The PPM remarked that by the time the hearings take place that the targets may have changed.

He commented that it was unsurprising that the Planning Inspector had raised questions about the housing figures. Officers would work to defend the lower figure, set by the Council, and justify reasons for departure from the standard methodology. The Inspector may be minded to consider alternate figures and confirm what that Councils’ position would be if the housing figure was modified.  The PPM advised in such instance, he would not respond to the Inspector without first speaking with the Portfolio Holder. 

6. Cllr J Punchard stated it seemed eminently sensible to move the plan back, as questioned by the Inspector, though stressed it was important the council be conscious of the impact this may have on individual policies and matters i.e. renewable energy infrastructure.

7. The PPM confirmed that he would look to review each individual policy when considering the Inspector’s question about pushing back the plan dates. Certainly, the Council would not wish to be working to today’s standards in 2040 with respect renewable energy, as there was an expectation that things would improve.

8. Cllr V Holliday expressed her support for the Officer’s recommendation and for the Working Party being provided regular updates. She sought clarity whether some of the decisions would be brought back to the Working Party.

9. The PPM advised, as a back stop position, that he would return items to the Working Party should the Inspector recommend substantial modifications, which may otherwise find the Plan unsound. In the first instance the PPM would consult with the Portfolio Holder, before going to the Working Party for further endorsement.

In the event that the Planning Inspector considered the need for substantial modification, they would likely adjourn the hearing for a number of weeks or months to enable the Council to form a revised view. Such a shift in policy would go out to public consultation. The PPM affirmed that it was highly likely that there would be further public consultations in relation to the modifications already scheduled.

10. Cllr N Dixon agreed with the proposed delegation to the PPM and reflected on the prior two cycles of Local Plan examination, to which he had been a Member, that there was a lot of routine matters which the PPM should be able to answer without difficulties. He stated that those issues which fell out of this scope and were far broader reaching, should not only return to the Working Party but to Cabinet also.

Cllr N Dixon noted that previously the Working Party had not been chaired by the Portfolio Holder for Planning and considered the process for referral may be more robust if wording be added to the recommendation that the PPM be delegated authority in consultation with the Portfolio Holder ‘and the Chairman of the Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party’. This would cover off a potential scenario in which the Portfolio Holder was not the Chairman, and would allow for the Vice-Chairman of the Working Party to deputise should the Chairman be unavailable. 

With regards the questions raised by the Inspector, Cllr N Dixon reserved his judgement till the full implications were known for extending the plan period. Similarly, with respect Nutrient Neutrality the plan for full mitigation delivery was work in progress. He considered more information was needed in order to form a meaningful response.

11. Cllr W Fredericks welcomed that the Council would be able to put forward their case to the Planning Inspector, particularly with respect of housing targets and social housing. She noted that 4 million homes needed to be built nationally to meet current demand. Cllr W Fredericks asked what support would be given to the Local Authority in delivering house building, and commented that the developer controlled whether delivery was achieved. She expressed concern that developers would not deliver on affordable homes, and may potentially block land for development until such time it was in the developer’s interest.

12. The PPM advised the higher figure in the plan enabled a failure contingency in the event that some sites weren’t delivered. He commented that the Local Authority had some influence on build out rates of permitted decisions, in granting permission subject to delivery of the development in 18 months (by way of an example). Further, the government could incentivise development through changes to taxes, use of grants or subsidies. Ultimately, the Local Authority had little power to directly intervene in market failure. The PPM advised that the Planning Inspector would carefully consider the deliverability of sites, review the history of the site, ownership, financing and viability to determine if there was a ‘realistic prospect’ of the site being built in the timeframe specified.

13. Cllr J Toye agreed with the principle of Cllr N Dixons amendment, but considered the inclusion of the ‘Vice Chairman’ was too prescriptive, rather, he would consider the Portfolio Holder should gather soundings from the Working Party or Local Members more broadly when forming a view.

14. The PPM advised the wording would be for the inclusion of the ‘Chairman of the Working Party’ with the expectation that the Vice-Chairman would deputise in the event that the Chairman was unavailable for an extended period of time under the constitutional arrangements.

The PPM commented that that questions tabled were offered as an example, and he had not anticipated Members to form a response. Following Members commented he advised he would, if permitted, respond to the Inspector and report back to the Working Party as to how he had responded. He reiterated that there would be significant time delays without delegated power to respond.

15. Cllr N Dixon reflected that the situation was worse than Cllr W Fredericks described. First, there may be a situation in which no planning applications are received despite inclusion of sites in the Local Plan. Second, the delivery of approved planning applications rested with the applicant or central government, not the Local Authority. The 4 million homes figure was that required today, but this figure was likely to increase as it was being delivered and therefore was 4 million plus. Cllr N Dixon commented that the 4 million homes was the symptom, not the cause of the problem, and cautioned treating the symptoms without addressing the underlying cause. Should Central Government decide to intervene it would effectively become the market maker, a very different role and one with political difficulties. Cllr N Dixon concluded in stating that he was mindful that there were no easy solutions.

16. Cllr J Toye accepted the Officers recommendation with the amendment put forward by Cllr N Dixon. Cllr P Heinrich seconded the recommendation

UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED

That Members of the Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party recommend to Cabinet that delegated authority is given to the Planning Policy Manager in consultation with the Planning Portfolio Holder and Chairman of the Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party to respond to the Inspectors questions prior to and during the Examination hearings.