Agenda item - PUBLIC QUESTION TIME AND PETITIONS

Agenda item

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME AND PETITIONS

Up to fifteen minutes will be made available for questions from members of the public on issues relating to the work of the Committee and to receive any petitions.

 

Minutes:

The following questions were received and the Chairman responded:

 

1.    Pauline Perkins

 

The Officer report recognises at paragraph 7.2 of their report that modifications to the submitted Plan should not make so many changes that it is, in essence, a different Plan. 

The Procedural Practice in the Examination of Local Plans (the Procedural Practice) makes quite clear at paragraph 1.3:

“The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act specifically provides that a LPA must not submit the Plan unless it considers the document is ready for examination.  The Inspector will take the published plan…as the final word of the LPA on the Plan.  Therefore there is a strong expectation that further LPA led changes to the Plan will not be necessary and this is the key premise of delivering an efficient examination timetable”.

The above statement is repeated at paragraph 5.20 of the Procedural Practice with the additional words:

“Provision for changes after submission is to cater for the unexpected, not intended to allow the LPA to complete or finalise the preparation of the Plan.”

The report before Members this evening, together with the new and emerging changes to the evidence base and other changes to the Plan which are being proposed by the Council, do fundamentally and cumulatively alter the submitted Local Plan to such an extent that it will be a new Plan.

Would the Panel please respond to the points listed above and confirm that, if it intends to adopt Approach C), the correct course of action is to withdraw the submitted Plan in accordance with paragraph 5.28 of the Procedural Practice which explicitly requires that, where Main Modifications might be so significant or extensive to effectively re-write the Plan, the withdrawal of the Plan would normally be expected? 

Response

 

The Council has not, as yet, formally agreed to make any changes to the submitted plan. The Local Plan process does allow for main modification to be made which are required to make a plan sound but as indicated in the report the Council will need to ensure that in the process of proposing modifications, it does not end up with a totally different plan.

 

The Inspector has indicated that any change to the OAN would result in the need for consultation. Similarly it is considered that the Inspector may well wish for consultation to take place on the implications of a different plan period and whether or not this would result in a fundamentally different plan.

 

It should be noted that the submitted plan is for a 19 year period 2013-2032 with an OAN of 15,200 dwellings and Approach C would similarly result in a 19 year period albeit for a different 19 years, 2016-2035 but also with an OAN of 15,200 dwellings.

 

The report does not recommend a decision should be made at this meeting so that any consultation which may be required can be taken into account prior to a decision being made.

 

2.    Neil Bedford

 

The Council is required to prepare and submit a Local Plan which significantly boosts the supply of housing, is positive, justified, effective and consistent with national policy.

 

All of the problems and delays with the examination of the local plan are caused by the Council persistently seeking to reduce its housing target and to defer housing delivery.  This conduct is not positive, not justified, not effective and not in accordance with national policy.

 

The present proposal to move forward the start date for the local plan from 2013 to 2016 is just the latest in a long line of attempts by this Council to reduce its housing target and to delay the progress of the local plan.

 

Would the CPPP please confirm that it will allocate sufficient sites across the whole borough in a fair and transparent way to meet its objectively assessed housing need and to comply with the obligations in the NPPF?

 

Response

 

The Council is in the process of updating the evidence and whilst more than sufficient sites have been promoted it is not yet known whether the technical work will indicate that these can be delivered within the plan period in accordance with the principles set out in the NPPF.

 

Sites will be assessed on a consistent basis based on the analysis of a number of matters including site suitability, cumulative impact, sustainability issues and harm to the Green Belt in accordance with the NPPF.

 

This information will be reported to Members so that the analysis can be seen to be fair and transparent and will in any event be open to challenge at the Examination Hearing Sessions.

 

It is too early to indicate that this process will result in sufficient sites to meet the OAN.

 

3.    Alan Perkins

 

In May 2017 the Council submitted its Local Plan for Examination in public.  The Objectively Assessed Housing Need had been assessed by Turley at 800 dwellings per annum for the Plan period 2013 to 3032 (19 years) = 15,200 new dwellings.

 

At the Examination, the Council agreed that the Plan period should have a minimum horizon of 15 years horizon after adoption. The Plan will therefore be extended to 2033 with an objectively assessed housing need of 16,000 new homes.

 

Due to delays in the Examination, the Council now anticipates that the Plan will not be adopted until 2020.  It has therefore identified that it would be necessary to extend the Plan period to 2035 in order to maintain a 15 year horizon, after adoption.

 

Approach B) at paragraph 4.19 of the officer’s report to CPPP sets out the OAN over the Plan period 2013 to 2035 at 800 homes per annum, being a total of 17,600 new homes.

 

The Council has produced an alternative scenario at Approach C which very simply involves deleting the Plan period between 2013 and 2016 (three years) and then adopting a Plan for the period 2016 to 2035 (19 years). This creates the illusion of reducing the OAN from 17,600 to 15,200 new dwellings.

 

At paragraph 4.14 of the Officer’s report, it suggests that the shortfall in housing delivery during the period 2013 to 2016 can be justified by “Market Signals”. Turley explain at paragraph 2.6 of their report that this is caused by a reduction in the formation of younger households. That is hardly a sensible approach because the provision of new homes for younger households is one of the most pressing needs in the borough.  Indeed, the abnormally high affordability ratio for lower quartile house prices in the borough has increased from 8.66:1 in 2013 to 12.22:1 in 2017 (See WHBC Annual Monitoring Report Table 18), which is a rise of 41%.  This is a very clear market signal of a lack of housing supply.

 

Seeking to move the start date for the Plan from 2013 to 2016 and expecting the shortfall in housing delivery for that period to simply vanish into the ether is wishful thinking and would increase the risk of a legal challenge if the adoption of the Plan was pursued on that basis.

 

The officers have also failed to report to this Panel that the Inspector wrote to the Council in December 2017 stating that the submitted Plan was not sound due to a failure to meet its OAN and also requiring the Council to allocate sufficient land to deliver 20,000 new homes, including safeguarded land for the period beyond this Plan.  Therefore, any attempt to reduce the delivery of new homes would not be positive or justified and, as stated by the Inspector, the Plan would not be sound.

 

Would the Panel please confirm that it will not support a change to the start date for the submitted Local Plan, or the reduction in housing delivery, caused by delays to the Examination and the adoption of the Plan.

 

Response

 

The Council has not been instructed by the inspector to set a particular time period for the local plan, although the issues of housing targets and time period have been aired as part of previous hearing sessions and are considered by Turley as part of their housing update work.

 

The report recommends that the Panel should note this evidence and agree it be forwarded to the examination inspector so that he can decide whether to consult on it and/or use it to inform forthcoming hearing sessions.

 

It is a matter for the Panel to consider these issues and decide whether to agree the recommendation or consider any alternatives.

 

Officers will respond to the technical points in this question via a separate written response.

 

4.    Mathew Perkins

 

Paragraphs 4.17 to 4.22 of Agenda item 8 set out to the CPPP three scenarios for proposed amendments to the Local Plan period:

 

·         Scenario a)    additional sites for 2,449 new homes

·         Scenario b)    additional sites for 3,715 new homes

·         Scenario c)    additional sites for 2,529 new homes

 

As currently drafted, the above scenarios include the allocation of a new settlement within Policy SP24, at Symondshyde, for 1,130 homes. However, the Council has confirmed to the Examination in Public and the Inspector has agreed that the allocation of Symondshyde should be assessed sequentially, after other suitable opportunities for new dwellings adjoining existing settlements, including the four large villages, are exhausted.

 

The Symondshyde site allocation should not therefore be contained within the sum of 8,620 “Allocations in the Local Plan” as stated in paragraph 4.17 of the officer report, but should be listed separately with an explanation that it will only be allocated if more suitable additional sites within the borough cannot be found.  As such, the additional sites required should state:

 

·         Scenario a)    additional sites for 3,579 new homes

·         Scenario b)    additional sites for 4,845 new homes

·         Scenario c)    additional sites for 3,659 new homes

 

The officer report should also advise the Panel that 598 homes presently within the submitted Local Plan are on sites which LUC found to be High Harm to the Green Belt.  If sites of High Harm were removed from existing site allocations in the Plan, the scenarios under consideration today would be:

 

·         Scenario a)    additional sites for 4,177 new homes

·         Scenario b)    additional sites for 5,443 new homes

·         Scenario c)    additional sites for 4,257 new homes

 

It is important for the Members to have a clear picture of the additional site allocations required to make the Plan sound.  As drafted, the officer report to this CPPP meeting is not clear.

 

Would the CPPP please discuss the above issue at tonight’s meeting?

 

Response

 

It is appropriate to consider the potential scale of any additionality in dwelling numbers, taking into account the sites that have already been proposed for allocation in the Draft Local Plan which has been submitted for examination.

 

Existing sites proposed for allocation in the submitted plan including Symondshyde will need to be reviewed in terms of the new evidence to ensure that decisions are being made on a consistent basis and that there are no better sites than those currently proposed for allocation in the submitted plan.

 

This comparison would need to consider issues such as harm to the Green Belt and the Green Belt boundary, the sustainability of the location, flooding, strategic benefits and disadvantages and whether the cumulative impacts on infrastructure can be addressed.