Agenda and draft minutes

          There were no apologies.

Members and Officers are invited to make any declaration of pecuniary, personal and/or prejudicial interests that they may have in relation to items on this agenda, and are reminded that they should re-declare their interest before consideration of the items or as soon as the interest becomes apparent.

Members and Officers should make their declaration by stating:

a)             the item they have the interest in

b)             whether it is a pecuniary/personal interest and/or prejudicial interest

c)             the nature of the interest

          Councillor McAuliffe declared a personal interest in respect of item 11, as a member of the South Downs National Park Authority.  He advised that he would not take part in the debate or vote on this item.

Councillor Elkins declared a personal interest in respect of items 6 and 7 as a member of West Sussex County Council.

The Committee will be asked to approve as a correct record the Minutes of the Planning Policy Committee held on 28 January 2025.

The minutes of the previous meeting held on 28 January 2025 were approved by the Committee and signed by the Chair.

          There were no urgent items presented at the meeting.

To receive questions from the public (for a period of up to 15 minutes).

The Chair confirmed that three questions from Ms Parkes on behalf of Cala Homes had been submitted for the meeting in accordance with the rules of the Council’s Constitution.

The questions were read out by the Committee Services Manager on the questioner’s behalf.

(A schedule of full questions asked, and the responses provided can be found on the meetings webpage here).

This report updates the Committee on the outcome of the tender process to appoint a consultancy to lead on the preparation of a new Local Plan, with support from ADC’s Planning Policy and Conservation Team.

[Councillor Elkins declared a Personal Interest during the discussion of this item as a member of West Sussex County Council]. 

The Interim Head of Planning Policy was invited by the Chair to present the report.  He referred to the report to the previous meeting on the Committee held on 28 January 2025 recommending the formal appointment of an external planning consultancy to lead the Council though the Local Plan update 2023-2041.  However, following the Government’s Devolution and Local Government reorganisation proposals, officers had provided an update at the meeting and had recommended that a deferral of the item to the next meeting to enable officers to obtain more information on the implications of the proposals once they were announced. Officers had now considered the implications following the announcement that the Council would be part of the Devolution Priority Programme.  To enter into a contract now would put the Council at financial risk in terms of the new legislation surrounding the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023, the Government’s proposals to bring in national development management policies and the Devolution and Local Government reorganisation.  Therefore, officers were of the opinion that to appoint an external consultant would not be in the best interests of the Council at this time.  He explained that a further update report on progressing the Local Plan would be referred to the Committee later this year once further details about the new unitary authority were known.

The recommendations were then proposed by Councillor Partridge and seconded by Councillor Huntley.

The Chair invited the Committee to make comment and ask questions. 

-   During the discussion comments were made in support of the recommendation that the Council should not spend money unnecessarily by appointing an external consultant to develop the updated Local Plan, due to the uncertainties at this stage of concerning Devolution and Local Government reorganisation. 

-   Concern was raised that the Government was going ahead with the proposals without proper consultation having taken place with the affected parties.  It was suggested that members should raise the Committee’s concerns through the Local Government Association and hoped that the Leader of the Council was raising these issues. 

-   It was asked how much the process had cost so far in terms of officer time and what work officers would be carrying out to progress the Local Plan in the meantime.  The Group Head of Planning advised that officers did not collate the amount of time spent progressing the Local Plan.  He confirmed that the work officers were suggesting they continue with would benefit the Council in terms of taking future decisions and on planning policy and planning application decisions.

-   As regards to the work that would continue to update the Local Plan evidence should the Committee not be minded to appoint a consultant at this time, assurance was sought that there would not be duplication of work, in particular concerning the Arun Transport Study.  The Interim Head of Planning Policy advised that officers were working closely with West  ...  view the full minutes text for item 606.

This report seeks the agreement of the Committee on the latest revision of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) for the Barnham/Eastergate/Westergate (BEW) Strategic Allocation. The revised IDP establishes the overall infrastructure needs of the development and proportionately distributes this between the sites which form the allocation. These figures have been derived through negotiation with relevant stakeholders.

[Councillor Elkins declared a Personal Interest during the discussion of this item as a member of West Sussex County Council].

Before consideration of this item, the Group Head of Planning welcomed the Strategic Development Team Leader who would be presenting the report; the Housing Development and Enabling Officer who would answer any questions in relation to agenda item 8; and Ian Moody, who had recently joined the Council as the permanent Planning Policy and Conservation Team Leader.  He advised that Zac Ellwood, Interim Head of Planning Policy, was leaving Arun District Council and that this would be his last meeting. 

The Committee wished to thank Zac Ellwood for all his hard work, diligence and assistance during his time working at Arun District Council.  He would be a great loss to the Council and they wished him all the very best for the future. 

The Strategic Development Team Leader was invited by the Chair to present the report on the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) for the Barnham/Eastergate/Westergate (BEW) Strategic Allocation.

          The following verbal update was given correcting the BEW IDP table at appendix 1, in respect of community provision set out on page 30:

-       Overall Community Contribution: Amend the total cost of “£16,858,004.58” to read “£16,986,209.58”.  The Infrastructure Development Plan had been updated to reflect the corrected total amount.

-       The following total costs had been updated to reflect updated costs estimates:

-       Aldingbourne Sports Centre Rebuild and Expand: Amend the total cost of “£1,600,000.00” to read “£1,709,400”.

-       Barnham Community Hall Extension: Amend the total cost of £400,000” to read “£427,350”.

-       Eastergate Hall Extension: Amend the total cost of “£162,000.00” to read “£170,940”.

-       The following floorspaces set out in column 2 had been amended so that they specified the total floorspace of the extension and not the total floorspace of the building:

-             Aldingbourne Sports Centre Rebuild and Expand: Amend “467 m2” to read “440 m2 and 160 m2 ”.

-             Barnham Community Hall Extension: Amend “405 m2” to read “ 150 m2”.

-             Eastergate Hall Extension: Amend “440 m2” to read “60 m2”.

-        He referred the Sports Hub – Indoor Sports/Leisure  description under the Infrastructure Project column and advised that the intention was to split the sports hub contribution from the community contribution.  This would create a separate row for the community hall contribution of £2,678,344.90 to make it clear the projects were funded from separate contributions.

The Strategic Development Team Leader then outlined the report.  The BEW IDP provided a summary of the infrastructure requirements associated with the delivery of the BEW strategic allocation.  Due to the scale and size of the development sites within the allocation, and the number of different developers that form the basis of the allocation the summary been developed so that the costs were known and to enable developers to inform their viability appraisals.  The IDP would also assist both officers and applicants in the preparation of their heads of terms in respect of the current live applications.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 607.

Over the past 12-18 months, Arun District Council has had multiple discussions with developers around difficulties in disposing of s106 affordable housing to Registered Providers (RP’s). In response to this, a report was commissioned to look at the issues and provide advice around how we should carry out these discussions around alternative delivery of affordable housing on sites through varying the requirements of planning obligations.

The Group Head of Planning was invited by the Chair to present the report produced by the Three Dragons consultant in response to a growing number of approaches from developers who had been unable to dispose of their affordable housing, as required under Section 106 agreements.  The reasons for the issues were set out in paragraph 4.2 of the report with further detail contained in appendix 1.  This was a national issue following a lack of interest by Registered Social Landlords in taking on Section 106 agreement housing and concerned deliverability and not viability.  The Three Dragons report (TD report) had been commissioned jointly with Arun’s Housing service to look at how a framework could be set up to look at the deeds of variation being received.  A number of options were set out in paragraph 5 of the TD report.  It was fundamental that whatever was required to be provided as an alternative should be equal to the costs that would be required in the Section 106 agreement in respect of affordable housing and it was advised that this would almost certainly result in a reduction in affordable housing provision in the short term than a Section 106 compliant delivery.  However, officers were trying to be as proactive as they could to get the best results for Arun in the meantime. and it was advised that the Government was aware of the issues facing Councils.  Officers were hopeful that in 18 months to two years’ time the funding framework for registered providers would change but there were no guarantees.   The Government was aware of these problems and that they existed due to the way they were grant funded. The recommendation asked the Committee to adopt the TD report, which officers would use in planning discussions with developers.       

The recommendations were then proposed by Councillor McAuliffe and seconded by Councillor Partridge.

The Chair invited the Committee to make comment and ask questions. 

-       The officers were thanked for their helpful clear report and it was acknowledged that there would be less affordable housing because of the current housing market conditions.  

-       A comment was made that as an interim measure the proposals were a sensible way forward.  It was pleasing to see that the Council proposed taking on housing properties themselves and that there had been discussions regarding the mix in terms shared ownership and first homes.       

-       A member raised his surprise that the TD report was before this Committee for adoption given that this was such a fundamental issue for all Arun residents and was considered a cross-Committee report.  He would have expected an all-member briefing to have taken place on the proposed document to enable a wider input on the options.  His preference was that this Committee should note the TD report, make a recommendation that an all member briefing should take place and to recommend the TD report to Full Council for wider approval.  The Group Head of Planning replied that the TD report had been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 608.

DEFRA proposes to develop a Land Use Framework that, they say, could be used to help guide development within the whole of the UK as well as create better climate resilience and agricultural practices for the future.

The Interim Head of Planning Policy was invited by the Chair to present the report, which set out the proposed Land Use Framework and the draft consultation response to the Department for Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).  It was noted that this was not a planning consultation and that the consultation was also aimed at land owners, farmers, and community and interest groups.  The Government had suggested that the consultation was in parallel to other planning consultations and other initiatives being proposed. The Framework was aimed at providing a more strategic spatial approach to allocating land.  Officers generally supported the intention to protect the most important land for  agriculture, food production, emissions reduction, environmental protection and biodiversity.  However, for this to be achieved it should dovetail with national planning policy.  It was considered that the consultation did not necessarily tie in with the message from the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government in terms of the recent National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).  He reminded members that the Council’s response to the NPPF consultation had made reference to the removal of the reference to the need to protect land for food production and that there was no need to remove that footnote.  However, shortly after the adoption of the NPPF, consultations had been received advising of the importance of protecting land for food production.  It was hoped that the proposed response raised the point that there was a disconnect between the policies.  It was considered that the timing of the consultation was ill timed given the uncertainty created by the Local Government Re-organisation and might be better timed to come forward once the combined strategic authorities had been developed.  However, he advised that there were a number of good strategic spatial approaches already in place, such as the development of Local  Nature Recovery Strategies.  Referring to the focus on housing provision and the lack of protection currently afforded to the best and most versatile agriculture land through the NPPF and also  from recent planning appeal decisions where even Grade 1 land had been outweighed by planning inspectors, having only given it moderate weight, due to the fact that Arun did not have a 5-Year Housing Land Supply.  Another point made in the NPPF consultation was that every local planning authority must take their fair share of housing no matter what the local constraints were, whereas the Land Use Framework was taking a more strategic view, which would be best suited to the larger local authorities following the Local Government re-organisation.  The Government had advised that local planning authorities should continue to progress their local plans.  Therefore, Arun would have to continue to allocate housing to meet its housing need of 1,476 and potential unmet need, which would inevitably result in the use of best and versatile agricultural land.  He referred to paragraph 4 of the draft covering letter, at appendix 1, that made reference to the conflict between the NPPF and the Framework, as regards the protection of agricultural land  ...  view the full minutes text for item 609.

The council is required to produce, and keep up to date, a Local Development Scheme (LDS). The LDS provides a work programme for the production of those Development Plan Documents to be prepared over a three-year period and is monitored in the Authority Monitoring Report and used for resource planning by PINS (the Planning Inspectorate).

The Interim Head of Planning Policy was invited by the Chair to present the report, which sought Committee agreement to recommend to Full Council the adoption of the updated Local Development Scheme (LDS) that set out the timescales for the production of the Local Plan update.  All Councils had been required to update their LDS by 6 March 2025.  He explained that to meet the deadline, officers had submitted the draft LDS included in appendix 1 to central government with a caveat that the LDS was subject to approval by Full Council.   He referred to the timetable set out on page 64 that provided updated timescales for the production of the Arun local Plan update.   It was anticipated that the Local Plan update would be submitted for adoption during January 2028 with its adoption taking place by Summer 2028. Officers were assuming that because it would not be submitted before December 2026 the Local Plan update would need to be submitted under the new local plan process proposed by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.  However, whilst the broad principles for the process had been identified the process was subject to secondary legislation yet to be announced, creating uncertainty for the timetable.  In addition, the Government was proposing to bring forward a range of national development management policies and had advised local planning authorities that they would not be able to repeat or conflict with these policies.  This created an issue for officers who would need to understand what the scope and context of these policies to avoid potentially abortive work.  Referring to the uncertainty of the Government re-organisation it would also create opportunities for joint working with other local planning authorities on studies for cross boundary issues, such as flood risk and transport.  More information on the Government’s proposals would be known after September 2025 and he advised that the next report to the Committee on Local Plan progress may also include an updated LDS scheme.    

The recommendations were then proposed by Councillor Bower and seconded by Councillor Lury.

The Chair invited the Committee to make comment and ask questions. 

          The Planning Policy Committee

                     RECOMMENDED TO FULL COUNCIL that

The draft Local Development Scheme March 2025 for the period 2025-2028 (as set out in Background Paper 1) be adopted; and

                       RESOLVED

That authority be delegated to the Group Head of Planning, in consultation with the Chair of Planning Policy Committee, to undertake minor updating and drafting of any amendments required to the LDS prior to publication of the final, approved version on the council’s website.

This report is intended to update members of the Planning Policy Committee and seek their agreement on the draft response to the South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA) on a current Regulation 18 Consultation on their Local Plan Review. The current South Downs Local Plan covers the period 2014 to 2033 and was adopted in July 2019. It is being reviewed to ensure it is up-to-date and addresses critical issues such as nature recovery, climate change, affordable housing and helping local communities thrive.

The Interim Head of Planning Policy was invited by the Chair to present the report.  The Regulation 18 consultation on the South Downs National Park Authority Local Plan review had ended the previous day.  However, a dispensation had been received from the South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA) to provide the Council’s comments after the deadline to enable consideration of the proposed consultation response by this Committee.  The proposed response to the consultation was set out at Appendix 1. He advised that officers endorsed the contents of the SDNPA’s Local Plan review, noting that the SDNPA had a different vision and legal requirements to Arun.  Referring to the consultation exercise itself, officers had noted how user friendly the consultation exercise had been, which they would take forward for when carrying out future consultations.  It was noted that the SDNPA was looking at stretch targets for biodiversity net gain above the national target and may be something that Arun’s officers would look at when progressing the Arun Local Plan.  He pointed out that although the SDNPA had not proposed any new housing allocations, officers were aware that under Regulation 19 the SDNPA would be identifying further allocations for housing.  In terms of the Council’s geographical boundary there were no significant proposals that would affect Arun.  The Council had a good relationship with the SDNPA under the duty to cooperate.   

The recommendations were then proposed by Councillor Partridge and seconded by Councillor Tandy.

The Chair invited the Committee to make comment and ask questions.  The Chair thanked officers for their thorough report. 

          RESOLVED

          That the Planning Policy Committee

i.    Note the content of the SDNPA’s Local Plan Review insofar as it affects interests within the Arun District.

ii.   Agree the proposed response to the SDNPA Local Plan Review (Appendix 1).

iii.  Delegate authority to the Group Head of Planning to, if necessary, make minor editorial changes prior to issuing the consultation response to the SDNPA.

The Committee is requested to note the Work Programme.

          The Committee noted the Work Programme.

          A non-member of the Committee was allowed to ask questions and make comment.  Reference was made the number of outside body appointments that report to the Planning Policy Committee and an update was requested from the Chair on when the Committee will receive these reports.  The Chair advised that members did attend meetings of the outside body appointments they were appointed to if they received an invitation.  However, she acknowledged that she had attended a meeting of the Conservation Area Advisory Committee held during December 2024 and had not submitted a report. 

A member made a comment that some members appointed to outside bodies reporting to this Committee who were not members of the Committee and said that in his opinion the members sitting on those appointments should be members of this Committee only.

Councillor McAuliffe advised that he was the Council’s representative on the South Downs National Park Authority.  Each month he provided members with the Authority’s monthly newsletter in which he advised members that he would be happy to respond to any specific issues.  He was happy to provide as much or as little information that members would like.