Agenda item
Background material:
o Consultation documents, track changes version of the NPPF, and outcome of the proposed revised method:
o Written Ministerial Statement - Building the homes we need:
Minutes:
Click here to view the recording of this item on You Tube
The Task Group received a presentation (copy attached with the minutes) on the current Government consultation: Proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and other changes to the planning system. These would reverse most national policy changes introduced in the December 2023 version of the NPPF; e.g. Key changes:
· Removal of references to “beauty”
· Removal of 5 year housing land supply protections for recently adopted Local Plans
· Change in direction for affordable housing; e.g. new focus on social renting, removal of 25% First Homes requirement.
It was explained that the proposals which were out to consultation included mandatory housing targets which would double the Council’s current local housing need (LHN) target from 554 to 1042. In looking at the overall increases proposed for the country in addition to the borough, the urban uplift had been dropped, London’s need had been lowered and there were substantial increases in the midlands and north of the country. The LHN methodology continued to use 2014 household projections.
The Local Plan Manager had engaged with MHCLG via a recent Planning Advisory Service (PAS) event and made it clear that housing delivery was a challenge locally. It was clear that without action taken by the Borough Council the housing delivery figures would be much lower.
It was stressed that it was important to get the authority’s emerging Local Plan in place as soon as possible. As the authority should be benchmarked against this once adopted and then should start to prepare a new local plan as soon as possible in the new plan making process, once Government had introduced this.
Councillor Sandell asked whether those Neighbourhood Plans (NP) adopted would be challenged with the new allocations. The Local Plan Manager explained that at this stage not much had been said about NPs via Government announcements, but as many had their own policies it was unclear if it would still be possible to do that, but they shouldn’t be used as a tool to prevent sustainable development. He reminded Members that NPs didn’t remain the same forever, they should be in conformity with the Local Plan, should be reviewed, and any further increase in numbers would likely have to be shared in the borough through a future Local Plan, and any neighbourhood plans. However, this would be considered as part of a future Local Plan.
Councillor Parish commented that because the consultation document had been published it didn’t mean the authority had to agree with its content. He referred to the ask of the increased numbers, and asked where all the people for the housing would come from. He drew attention to problems with water supplies for developments in Cambridge.
Councillor Parish further commented that he considered the Government’s proposals appalling, he referred the numbers of properties being able to be built out, with the numbers of builders and materials available. He considered that any further increases should be more gradual, and should be met from where the need was coming from.
Councillor de Whalley drew attention to the fact that the council was developing in the area when private developers weren’t, but that help from the Government was needed to build homes in the form of infrastructure such as roads, hospitals schools etc. He also referred to the Climate Change commitments for 2050 and the challenges of creating meaningful climate change policies, of which planning was an important factor.
Councillor Blunt commented that there were not usually changes made to consultation documents, despite comments made which meant that the council would have much higher targets, how many resources would be brought forward to assist as there were not sufficient trained planning staff to deal with that number of planning applications and needed the land, the building supplies and importantly the infrastructure. He asked what the implications were if the targets weren’t met.
The Chair asked about the relationship between 5-year housing land supply and the potential new time table of 30 months for local plan production should the Government return to this idea. The Planning Policy Manger explained that he thought that if the timetable was reduced that it was unlikely that 5-year land supply test would be altered, however we will have to wait and see what direction the Government decide to take in this space.
Councillor Spikings referred to the additional support required and the additional traffic which would be caused. She also referred to the lack of available burial plots in the Borough which was already affecting her ward.
Agreed: The Local Plan Manager explained that he would take the comments made and respond to the consultation which closed on 24 September 2024 following consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair.
In response to a question as to whether parishes would be consulted, it was reported that the consultation document was available for anyone to respond to, and at the planning training for parishes that evening they would be informed of it.
Councillor Morley at the end of the meeting commented on the consultation document which he considered nonsense. He stated that if it were to come into force the financial settlement should reflect all the additional work involved in the proposals.
Supporting documents:
PDF 336 KB