Agenda item

The Planning Policy Team Leader presented an update report on the progress on finalising the Local Plan.  He presented on screen the emerging Regulation 19, Proposed Submission Version of the Local Plan, which had been restructured to place greater emphasis on climate change issues, and gave the Working Party a walkthrough of the various emerging sections as outlined in Appendix 1 to the report.  He outlined the next steps in the process and the outstanding work streams that were required prior to the finalisation of the Plan ahead of consideration by the Working Party.

The Chairman stated that it was encouraging to see that sustainability, climate change and biodiversity were central to the design of the Plan.  He asked for clarification of the requirement for biodiversity net gain, whether the Council would be required to maintain a register of available land and how the requirement would be imposed upon developers.

The Planning Policy Team Leader explained that the Environmental Bill would introduce a legislative requirement for 10% biodiversity enhancement and a plan for how it would be managed over a 30 year period.  The proposed policy would align with that requirement, and include a sequential approach to provision.  Metrics for measuring biodiversity had been devised by the Government, in association with DEFRA. Developers would be required to measure the existing on-site biodiversity and submit it to the local planning authority with a plan as to how 10% gain would be achieved and be able to demonstrate how it would be established and maintained over 30 years.  Whilst the Council would monitor the biodiversity provision, the Planning Policy Team Leader did not think the Council would be required to maintain a register of land that was available for biodiversity net gain but it was likely that landowners who had land they could set aside for that purpose would market it as a commercial asset.  It was likely that the requirement would be imposed by a condition on the planning permission or by a planning obligation.  It was probable that a future supplementary planning document would be required to detail and explain how the new requirements would work in practice.

Councillor N Lloyd thanked the team for the effort being put into the climate change process.  He asked if there was awareness of how the Plan compared to other authorities’ Plans with regard to climate change.

The Planning Policy Team Leader stated that in his opinion this Council’s Plan was at the forefront in its emphasis on climate change. Some authorities were requesting a higher percentage of biodiversity net gain, but NNDC did not have the evidence to substantiate a higher target than that required from the emerging legislation.  The policies were aligned with Government policy and ambition in terms of carbon and greenhouse gas reduction to 2050, as distinct from the Council’s ambition for its own business by 2030. It is still likely that the government will introduce amendments to the Building Regulations to ensure future homes move towards carbon net zero early in the life of the Plan.

Councillor N Dixon asked that officers ensure that policies were cross referenced and linked in a logical way and that there was no duplication.  He asked if Policies CC11, CC12 and CC13 under the Natural Environment section would include the need to ensure that there were appropriate connections between sites so that they were part of a wider network and not separate islands.  He referred to issues relating to community wellbeing arising from housing density pressures and asked if it was proposed to define the housing densities that were acceptable in particular locations. 

The Planning Policy Team Leader stated that officers were keen to avoid unnecessary duplication and one of the outstanding tasks was to refine each section, removing unnecessary repetition and bringing better clarity where it was needed, but he advised that some cross over would be required to ensure each section was complete.  There was no specific policy on density, but consideration of matters such as open space and recreation avoidance mitigation would put pressure on densities and housing numbers in coming to a balanced decision.

The Planning Policy Manager added that there was further scope to rationalise some of the policies and some of the crossovers might be resolved in the final edit.  Some repetition might remain but he considered that it was acceptable provided it did not create confusion, adding that Officers were reasonably happy with the policies as drafted.  The ethos of connecting open space was part of the underlying strategy and in the reasoned justification, but it would be helpful to include wording in some of the policies. 

Councillor N Pearce stated that he did not object to the spatial strategy and its aims, but he was concerned that there would be a conflict with the protection of heritage and environment due to pressure to take up land that the Council was under a duty to protect.

In response to a question from the Chairman with regard to the inclusion of a glossary, the Planning Policy Manager confirmed that the final Plan would include a glossary of terms that required precise definition to ensure that meanings were clear.  There would be extensive footnotes in the policies and supporting text and consistency throughout the document. 

The Working Party noted the report.