Agenda item

All Councils are under a statutory obligation to prepare a Local Plan, and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires Councils to review Local Plan policies every five years. Para 12.1.12 of the existing Arun Local Plan indicates that if our housing delivery is below the required levels for two consecutive years, the Council will initiate a partial review of the Plan (in order to increase provision). There is therefore now a requirement to commence work on a review of some of the Local Plan and this report explores the options available to the Council.

            As a result of the changes to the administration following the local elections in May 2019, a series of briefings had been held for Members relating to planning matters and the Group Head of Planning now presented this report, particularly in light of the fact that the trigger for a review of the Local Plan had been reached, as set out at  paragraph 12.1.12 of the Local Plan.  In addition, the NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) confirmed that Local Plans should be reviewed every 5 years and, should that review result in an update,  that process could be lengthy and an early review was therefore necessary.  Further, the report followed on from the recently agreed new strategic targets of the Council, one of which was a high priority to develop a new planning framework to improve sustainability and infrastructure and respond to climate change as part of a Local Plan review. 

            The Subcommittee was advised that there was a need to recognise that a review was required now and, at a minimum, the housing policies contained within the Plan should be reviewed as they would require updating based on the current shortfall in the 5 year housing land supply (HLS)

            The report set out options for the process, which in summary were:-

Option 1 -  a commitment to an updated Plan to produce a full new Local Plan which would take between 3 – 5 years and would need to accommodate an additional 5 years to take the end date to 2036. There would be a substantial cost to this of in the region of £1 million.

Option 2 - to revise the strategic allocations. The report set out the reasons why there would be no realistic prospect of extinguishing the existing allocations. The Council would need to demonstrate with evidence why such allocations were unsound and would have to be able to demonstrate that it could accommodate housing needs on alternative sites that had been consulted upon and was justified by evidence. However, all allocations would be considered as part of an updated Plan.

Option 3 - to concentrate on just the development management policies within the Local Plan and would be a more focussed update. This would concentrate on policies that, for example, related to climate change, environment and design.  Whilst this could technically take place in isolation, it would not be possible to leave the housing policies as they were whilst these policies were being updated because there was a requirement now to review and update those policies as well.

Option 4 - to concentrate on developing Supplementary Planning Documents in support of existing Local Plan policies.  However, it should be recognised that this option would not result in a set of new policies reflecting the new strategic targets.

Option 5 -  to do nothing.  Officers fully recognised the situation the Council found itself in where it had had exceptionally high housing numbers imposed upon it and that those numbers were very difficult to deliver based on past performance requiring a significant uplift by the housing sector.  There was also the issue of incurring substantial costs, only to end up with a Plan that would be out of date 18 months after adoption. However, that was the current system for all local authorities and there were implications of not complying with the legal requirements. The potential implications of doing nothing would be that the Secretary of State could take over our plan making functions to produce a Plan which the Council would have to pay for.

The Subcommittee heard that agreement was being sought on a course of action to take the process forward, with no commitment being placed on the Council at this stage.  At the outset of any of this work, evidence gathering would be scoped against a new ‘vision’ and ‘objectives’ for what the Council would be aiming to create. However, there would be no escaping the fact that any process would be complex and very difficult decisions would have to be taken around development required to accommodate increased housing need. Further reports to the Subcommittee would be presented on these matters over coming months.

Members were advised that officers considered that there was an opportunity to produce a new Plan that would reflect the Council’s strategic targets around climate and infrastructure. It was felt that a combination of options 1 and 3 would provide the new administration with an opportunity to set new development management objectives in policy after evidence had been gathered and tested and consultation carried out.  Initially, work could focus on updated development management policies following agreement by Full Council. 

It was anticipated that this process would have to be aligned with an update of the strategic elements of the Plan, which would include updated housing needs and, once these development management policies had been agreed, work would continue on the strategic policies.  On completion, the two work streams would merge to create a new Plan for consultation, examination and, hopefully, adoption.

The Subcommittee then participated in a detailed debate, during which it was acknowledged that there was a very clear requirement for the Plan to be reviewed.  A view was expressed that what was being proposed was a sensible compromise and that a very serious concern that must be addressed was the fact that the house building target set for the District was not currently being delivered by developers and for which the Council was being penalised.  Several Members voiced their worry with regard to the housing figures and the potential for a substantial increase and discussion and comment was made around climate change; the coastal flood plain; and accessible housing.

During the course of discussion, Member comment was made that every action must be taken to avoid losing control of the Local Plan process as it would then be taken over by the Secretary of State.  Any housing imposed must be located in those parts of the District that required improvements in terms of infrastructure.   As there was currently a shortfall in the housing delivery figure of 1,250, it was understood that that shortfall would have to be accommodated  within the Local Plan period and any accumulation would be added at the end – if the Plan period was then extended by five years the housing need would  also be increased so that too would have to be accommodated in addition to any shortfall.

A concern was raised that the Council was not being represented at Sub regional level, particularly with regard to the issues around the Duty to Cooperate with Chichester and Worthing and that this process could help to resolve the required strategic infrastructure needs.  However, the Director of Place was able to give an assurance that that was not the case.  The Coastal West Sussex Strategic Planning Board was currently going through the process to assess evidence to help set out a sub regional position up to 2050.  Conversations were ongoing but it was too early to provide further information at this stage.  He advised that it was vitally important for Members to consider the wider strategic implications as strategic matters should be included in the Local Plan.  A broader perspective had to be taken and there would be a need to ensure that any decisions taken by the Council would not have a negative impact on other authorities.

Members were generally happy to accept options 1 and 3 at this stage and acknowledged there was a lot of work to be done going forward in the future.  It was important to not lose control of the planning system, which could happen if steps were not taken to review some of the Local Plan policies.

In turning to the recommendations, and following discussion, it was agreed that the following recommendations be amended:-

i.    A combination of options 1 and 3 are pursued – to be deleted as Members felt that this was implicit in recommendation ii.

ii.  The update of the Local Plan commences as updating the Development Management policies in the Local Plan so that these can be used by the Council in the short term, before completing an update of the full Plan.  This would involve gathering evidence to support update policies, formal and informal consultation and agreement of Full Council.  (The wording in bold was the change agreed by members for the purpose of clarity.)

It was formally proposed and seconded that only option 3 be pursued at this time but, on being put to the vote, was declared LOST.

The Subcommittee then

RECOMMEND TO FULL COUNCIL – That

(1)    The update of the Local Plan commences as updating the Development Management policies in the Local Plan so that these can be used by the Council in the short term, before completing an update of the full Plan.  This would involve gathering evidence to support update policies, formal and informal consultation and agreement of Full Council;

(2)    The likely costs of approximately £1million and the timescales of this process be noted; and

(3)    Future reports to the Planning Policy Subcommittee will report on progress at relevant stages of this process and the scope of evidence.