Agenda item

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) setting out the Inspector’s conclusions on the Full Objective Assessment of Housing Need (FOAHN), the soundness of additional sites, the revised windfall assessment, and the treatment of Green belt boundaries. His supplementary report addresses concerns about selection of sites and provides guidance on the way forward.

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) setting out the Inspector’s conclusions on the Full Objective Assessment of Housing Need (FOAHN), the soundness of additional sites, the revised windfall assessment, and the treatment of Green belt boundaries. His supplementary report addressed concerns about selection of sites and provided guidance on the way forward.

Officers made members aware of an error in Table 1, confirming that BrP7 should only appear in table 2 of the appendix.

Officers set out the key points of the letter from the Planning Inspector which showed the modifications they thought would be required to make the Local Plan sound. The letter did set out a timeline for revising the Local Plan.  However, Officers wrote to the Inspector and confirmed that the timeline proposed could not be met, and instead proposed an alternative timetable. This was noted by the Members 

The Inspector’s letter explained that whilst they found the Plan to be unsound, this could change with a revised FOAHN.

Officers informed members that the FOAHN was informed by the latest evidence and would be updated every two years. The Inspectors report reviewed whether there has been a “meaningful change” in the data. Members were informed that the only “meaningful change” was natural change. This assessment resulted in a higher uplift than the Turley Assessment with 15,200 dwellings. This was lower than the previous OAN. It was made clear that the Plan would need to have a 5-year land supply with proportionate distribution and sustainability of settlements.

Furthermore, it was made clear by the Inspector that more sites would be needed to meet the FOAHN, and the range of sites will need to take into account the Inspectors test to make the Plan sound.  Officers confirmed that the next meeting of the Panel in October would go into greater detail on specific sites and options.

During the debate the following points were raised and discussed:

1)    Member asked for clarification as to whether the sites listed in Table 3 (sites capable of being found sound) should be considered before the site listed in Table 2 (Sites Found Sound but could be replaced by other sites). Officers clarified that whilst some of the sites in Table 3 would be as sustainable however, not all sites would be sustainable.

2)    Members asked for clarification on what determined the local need. Officers stated that the local need arose from birth and death rates.

3)    Members noted the constraints on the Council to amend and shape the Local Plan. Officers confirmed that the Council cannot take sites out of the plan without withdrawing the whole Plan, However, modifications of sites was possible, and Officers had asked the Inspector to see what modifications could be made to the Plan to make deem it sound.

4)    In response to a Member’s request. Officers agreed to produce a table of sites which had been ruled out of the Local Plan.

5)    Members expressed a concern that young people were underrepresented in discussions about the Local Plan, Officers provided reassurance that steps had been taken to involve young people but confirmed that the majority of formal representation had been made by mainly older stakeholders who lived near proposed sites.

6)    Members raised the possibility of what would happen if an agreement cannot be found and the potential cost implications. Officers confirmed that should the Council fail to reach an agreement with the Inspector, then the current proposed Local Plan would be lost. As well as the cost incurred in developing any new Plan, the Plan itself would need to conform to the new methodology and would have to exclude any development that had been completed. This would in effect raise the housing target. The lack of a Local Plan would also increase the risk of planning decisions being challenged and going to appeal.

7)    Members calculated the number of sites listed in the appendix as totalling 15,026. Officers stated the windfall allowance, completion and commitments would also contribute to this list. Members noted that approximately, 2, 500 have been completed.

8)     Members raised that high harm sites are seen as sound sites by the Inspector, and how the inspector can increase sites.

RESOLVED:

That the Cabinet Planning and Parking Panel note the Inspectors Report.