To receive a presentation from Councillor David Levett, Executive Member for Planning, Enterprise and Transport regading the Local Plan.
Decision:
Councillor David Levett, Executive Member for Planning, Enterprise and Transport, thanked the Chairman for inviting him to address the Committee and gave a PowerPoint presentation regarding the current status of the Local Plan and the expected timetable for future progress.
The Chairman thanked Councillor Levett for his presentation.
Minutes:
Audio recording – Start of Item – 46 minutes and 7 seconds
Councillor David Levett, Executive Member for Planning, Enterprise and Transport, thanked the Chairman for inviting him to address the Committee and gave a PowerPoint presentation regarding the current status of the Local Plan and the expected timetable for future progress.
The Chairman thanked Councillor Levett for his presentation.
Background:
· ‘Preferred Options’ document approved for consultation on 24/11/2014 which ran from 18/12/2014 – 05/02/2015;
· 8,382 responses – 15,500 individual comments from those responses;
· There were major revisions and a submission version was approved for consultation on 11/04/2017. The consultation period ran from 19/10/2016 – 30/11/2016. There were 2,459 responses and 5,675 individual representations;
· Public Hearing with an Inspector in Letchworth. Originally scheduled for 8 days however there were 28 days of hearings in total which ran between November 2017 to March 2018;
· There were 400 representations and included input from the public, councillors and MP’s, developer’s landowners, neighbouring authorities, health, education, transport, environmental authorities, various pressure groups, parish and town councils and public bodies;
· During the Hearing additional work and background information was requested by the Inspector and extra work was volunteered to give extra substance and explain things in more clarity. This was submitted in June 2018. Updates followed as there were two legislative changes and information in local plans, particularly regarding environmental assessment that meant extra work was required;
· Inspector requested further clarification following these which were submitted in November 2018;
· Inspector’s main modifications and supporting documents were published on 19th November 2018;
· Special Cabinet meeting scheduled for 10th December 2018 at 3pm which was to grant approval for consultation on the following:
· Inspector’s proposed main modifications to the plan;
· A sustainability appraisal which looked at those modification in context and made sure that the plan was still viable;
· There were some additional documents which were submitted to the Inspector as requested by him;
· All these documents were located on the main council website under local plan;
· The consultation, assuming approved by Cabinet was on 10th December 2018, ran for six weeks from 3rd January 2019 to 14th February 2019. Due to the volume of the documentation, plenty of time was given for everyone to go through it prior to the full consultation process;
What had not changed:
· Fundamentally the same plan was approved for submission by full Council in April 2017. There were no changes to the housing requirement had not changed. The identified need still needed to be met in full. A reasonable contribution needed to fulfil Luton’s unmet housing needs and Stevenage’s employment needs;
· The land marked as greenbelt release, was to be released from the greenbelt. A large area however was designated around Offley and Whitwell between Hitchin and Luton which stopped the encroachment into North Herts as new greenbelt. This was being pushed to be included as it was extremely rare to put new greenbelt in. The Inspector accepted that and included extra greenbelt. The result was that there was 9% more greenbelt than before;
· The land allocations, with the exception of one site in Royston where development had started in the intervening period, revealed that no allocations were deleted nor any new sites added. The new development should have made provision for the required infrastructure and that was an accumulative view. All the development, when looked at planning applications, should have taken into account the cumulative view of any development within the local plan;
· Provision of up to 40% affordable housing on new developments remain. The amount would depend on the size of the development and there was a large proportion earmarked as affordable, rented accommodation which also remains.
The Main Modifications:
· 400 modifications were identified, ranging from insertion of a single to the introduction of new or replacement policies. Each of the 106 sites had become a policy site which meant that policies had to be met before development could be approved;
· The main modifications were submitted to a sustainability appraisal and sustainability appraisal was one of those documents for consultation;
· A tracked change version of the submission version was available on the website which made it easier to follow all the changes;
Key Changes:
· Barkway, Knebworth, Codicote, Little Wymondley and Ickleford were originally classified as Category A villages. The Inspector said that they were more developed than most of the others, so they were identified as villages “identified for growth”. A clear explanation of how future retail needs were to be met by distributing a new floor space across the district. The Inspector wanted to know how this would be allocated on a town by town basis. This had been attempted however was very difficult with the current retail situation and they were trying to be as realistic as possible;
· The local transport plan – LTP4 was incorporated within the local plan and the plan focused on ‘modul shift’ getting on your bikes using public transport more had been incorporated into the local plan and on the individual site locations as well. There was additional criteria information to propose site allocations which had to be met by any new development. Concise information was required from the developers and they would need to specify the size and whether something should be retained or not. All the allocations were now to become policies instead of advisory guidance which would be very important when making planning decisions;
· Extensive changes were made to the Development Management Policies of the plan and needed to be sufficiently robust to achieve the intended results;
· Additional policy guidance had been provided and the plan would be implemented and monitored so there would be a more detailed action plan;
· Letchworth Garden City design principles were not in the plan mainly because they were not exactly conforming to the NPPF which was the National Planning Policy Framework. However the Inspector requested that these be put in;
· Full allocation of land to Danesbury Park Road in the south of the district to meet future needs of gypsy and traveller accommodation. One site was already present. Planning application and appeal was in process throughout the hearings and site was therefore now included as part of the local plan.
Where do we go from here:
· 10th December 2018 – Cabinet approved consultation. This was a straightforward decision with no debate;
· Consultation ran from 3rd January 2019 – 14th February 2019. All responses were to be collated and then sent to the Inspector. The Inspector reviewed the representations and he said that “he would not consider unrelated or new representations”. He was asking purely on the main points and additional documents;
· Inspector then prepared a final report of recommendations taking into consideration anything that has come in as a consultation and once this final report was issued, full council is asked to adopt as recommended. Full Council could not change that final version. It could only be accepted or rejected. Once adopted this would have to be adhered to.
In response to questions from Members including Councillors Spencer-Smith, Bishop, Tyler, Councillor David Levett advised that:
· The greenbelt area was a large area but they had taken part of it out but there was an overall gain of 9%;
· The new greenbelt was from the area of outstanding natural beauty on the A505 across towards Hitchin and back onto the Luton border, right down to St Paul’s Walden and Kings Walden;
· The remaining greenbelt was not available for development during the planning period. It was possible to build on greenbelt land if special circumstances existed such as for social housing or agricultural dwellings;
· With the new platform and software IT had been working throughout the latest consultation period;
· Our number was based on an objectively assessed need and based on a 20 year projected population growth and housing growth required to meet that population growth, changes and market influences. It was quite a complicated calculation. The figure given was predicted housing growth and was based on the period 2001-2011 on the actual number of homes that had been completed and not on the need. The baseline and time period was different and what was being represented, was different. The Secretary of State had already queried the figures and Secretary for State, James Brokenshire, when asked about the numbers confirmed there was no change in the government’s position. They were looking to produce 300,000 new homes every year for at least 10 years. There was a new standard formula on how the numbers would be calculated and they were querying why the 9600 was released as it did not compare like for like. A statement had been issued as the Inspector had already asked the question and there was an 18 page response as to why the numbers did not change.
· The planning application for 167 houses at Codicote could be looked at. Some developers were trying to push the applications through before the local plan was adopted, hoping to get away with higher numbers. The actual number was less than the developer had applied for. Once in the local plan, it would carry substantial weight. The Government advice prior to NPPF coming out aimed for a minimum density of 30 dwellings/hectare. The NPPF said the density was up to the Local Authority who would determine what was most appropriate for the site in question. There was no overall formula and each site was considered under its own merits and the density was calculated accordingly. Developers had appealed on the grounds that the Government stated this was what the country was doing. NHDC robustly defended policy as it was different to other places with vast amounts of open spaces. Every case had been won so far.
· The law is that before any Planning Application had been approved, even if met all the other criteria, one of the fundamental reasons for refusal was the lack of a Section 106 Agreement which had to be agreed between District and County Councils and Developers sometimes in conjunction with other authorities like water and sewerage. The Agreement had to be in place before Planning Permission was granted. If an agreement could not be reached, planning permission would not be given.
The Chairman thanked Councillor David Levett for his presentation.