Agenda item

To receive an update on recent government announcements in relation to planning issues.

The Assistant Director of Planning, Building Standards, and Sustainability introduced the report which provided information and invited comment on the content of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (LURB). It was noted that the deadline to respond to the consultation was 2 March 2023; the response would be signed off by the Cabinet Member for Housing Services, Private Renters, and Planning but comments from the Committee were welcomed.

The Head of Policy, Transport, and Infrastructure Planning highlighted that there were two key elements to the consultation: to seek views on the proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and on the government’s overall planning reforms for the longer term.

In relation to the NPPF, it was explained that there were important changes proposed to densities, which would encourage dense development in appropriate areas, to the requirement for local authorities to demonstrate a five year housing land supply, which would be removed, to the assessment of Local Plans, which was designed to be simpler, and to give energy efficiency more weight for non-domestic buildings.

In relation to longer term changes, it was explained that the government was proposing National Development Management Policies (NDMPs) which were intended to avoid the need for local authorities to repeat national policies in their Local Plans. It was noted that additional detail was due to be provided in a future consultation but that the proposed wider changes were set out in the report.

It was noted that officers were currently drafting a response and that the key points were set out in the report. In summary, there was support for the removal of the five year housing land supply requirement, the more proportionate approach to examining Local Plans, and the proposals for energy efficiency. Concerns were due to be expressed about the practicalities of considering applicants’ past behaviour and about having NDMPs and how these would interact with Local Plans that involved local engagement and agreement. It was added that planning policy was currently a key issue and a number of further consultations were anticipated throughout the next few years.

In response to questions from the Committee, the following responses were provided:

·         Some members expressed concerns about the proposals for ‘Supplementary Plans’ which would require examination and which would effectively void existing Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs); it was considered that this would undermine a number of important, local protections. The Head of Policy, Transport, and Infrastructure Planning noted that these concerns would be included in the Council’s response and it would be explained that SPDs which were reasonable and which had been through local consultation and agreement should be allowed to continue. It was commented that, although it would be resource intensive and would take some time, it would be possible to include some of the SPD protections in the Local Plan.

·         In relation to the removal of the five year housing land supply requirement, it was stated that this would allow local authorities to give full weight to their Local Plans. It was explained that, if a Council could not continually demonstrate this, the Local Plan had reduced weight and a presumption in favour of sustainable development was applicable. This requirement was difficult to maintain, particularly in London where there was limited land available, and the removal of the requirement would allow local policies to be implemented more strongly. The Assistant Director of Planning, Building Standards, and Sustainability clarified that the Council would not reduce its ambition to deliver housing but that the proposals would remove the sanctions where it was not possible to meet targets.

·         In relation to the consideration of an applicant’s past behaviour, some members suggested that this could be a helpful consideration in some circumstances and it was enquired whether it was possible to request a more specific definition of what behaviour should be taken into account to avoid potential legal challenges. The Assistant Director of Planning, Building Standards, and Sustainability noted that officers’ technical view was that this proposal would be too difficult to implement but it was acknowledged that the response could include a political view as well; this would be raised with the Cabinet Member. It was added that, in practice, it was believed that there would be ways for applicants to circumvent this ground and officers were sceptical that it could be delivered.

RESOLVED

To note the report.