Agenda item

Cabinet

            RESOLVED

            To note the contents, of and proposals, within the White Paper, and agree to the responses to the consultation questions contained with Appendix 1, with the comments raised at the meeting being added to the responses by the Group Head of Planning in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Plannning.

The Cabinet Member for Planning, Councillor Lury, introduced this report stating that it set out a summary of the fundamental changes being consulted upon on the Government’s Planning White Paper – Planning for the Future. These changes, if implemented, would result in significant changes to the planning system and the way in which the Council would have to operate.  Councillor Lury outlined his observations – these have been summarised below:

·         looking at binding house numbers and the top down approach – he could not find any reference on how to replace duty to co-operate and he had concerns about who would be the arbiter of constraints in an area, would the infrastructure deficit that Arun had, be accepted as a constraint?

·         He had concerns about the extension of permitted development rights – where would a resident go to object and then where would be the quality control?

·         On the Infrastructure Levy, Councils could borrow to provide up front infrastructure, but for large projects this would be a huge risk

·         He had concerns on the idea that the public could get involved at stage 1, when there would be no details

·         On the stripping back of local plans – this sounded like a good idea going from 7 years to 30 months, but was this workable?

·         The new White Paper was not all negative – the new design code was great but how would you be able to get builders to build beautiful homes – how would this work in practice?

Councillor Lury stated that the Council’s planned responses to the consultation questions had been set out in Appendix 1 to the report and that Cabinet was being asked to agree these.  He then invited the Group Head of Planning to outline some of the main changes proposed.

The Group Head of Planning confirmed that the White Paper presented the most fundamental changes to the planning system in a generation.  It was seeking to streamline and modernise the planning system by introducing 24 proposals which would be implemented by the end of 2024.  This led to 26 consultation questions being asked and Officers had drafted responses for Cabinet to agree. 

The Group Head of Planning then talked about the main proposals. The main thrust to the changes would be how Local Plans would be produced in terms of their content in that they would only designate three different types of land uses. Growth areas that would automatically benefit from outline planning permission, renewals for smaller scale developments, and protected areas where there would be stringent controls such as areas of countryside and areas of outstanding natural beauty.  The timetable to produce plans would be reduced to 30 months. The standard housing methodology would be binding on Local authorities and plans produced would have to make provision to meet this by law.  There would be more emphasis on design quality and a new proposal called “fast track to beauty”.  In terms of decision making, there would be a greater emphasis on digitalisation and more standard planning statements. There was also the potential for the automatic refund on fees if applications were not determined in time.

There were a lot of proposals to be welcomed, but there were also many questions that remained unanswered. The main issues were the distinct lack of opportunity taken to address climate change. The Government had made some positive statements but had not followed these through in the White Paper. The simplification to Local Plans were welcomed but timescales need to be realistic.  There were also issues around public engagement which needed to be ironed out because there was potential for less public involvement in the process and short timescales to get involved at various stages.  There were also questions around strategic planning and joint working with potential implications on income in terms of performance and numerous issues around additional resourcing.  The Group Head of Planning outlined that the Council would have to wait to see what type of detail might come through and the likely amount of income that could be received if there was the need to create posts around design.  Another missed opportunity had been to not address the issue of developers building without permissions and them receiving penalties for doing so.  

The Chairman commenced debate and referred to question 8a. He referred to infrastructure capacity stating that although the Government had said that they would move to a system of funding it by Government up front, then recovering from the developer later, he was not sure how this would work and who would initiate and agree it.  Looking at highways, the frequent answer that the Council received from WSCC, as Highways Authority, was in relation to the size of developments proposed which would only make a small incremental adjustment to traffic or a particular stretch of road, the accumulative effect of development did not seem to be addressed.  

The Group Head of Planning confirmed that there were more questions than answers and that there was the need to consider CIL now and not just Section 106 monies.  Large items that were not delivered through strategic allocations would have to come forward from CIL and would be down to the Council to determine how to spend these funds when received on an annual basis. There would be different reports being submitted for Member consideration later.  On cumulative impacts, these were taken into account in terms of looking at what was committed through transport assessments, but these might not always be able to include small windfall sites.  The issue of forward funding projects through proposals in the white paper would be a decision that the Council would need to take in terms of the amount of risk it might wish to expose itself to and the long-term issue of then recouping money back through the CIL process.

The Chairman then raised a concern over 9a [Do you agree that there should be automatic outline permission for areas for substantial development (Growth Areas) with faster routes for detailed consent?  There was a caveat there in terms of who and how these decisions would be made, local residents would have less and less say over routine permissions than at current. The Group Head of Planning confirmed that the White Paper had that potential, though there were professionals who saw it very differently and saw public engagement being more front loaded.  There was a big issue around outline or permission in principles from whether a site or area was defined for growth in that who prepared that evidence to justify an allocation in a plan – there was a whole new level of detail that the Council currently prepared evidence base for. It was outlined that if this burden should fall on the Council then the burden should fall on the developers to do this, though nothing had been detailed in the White Paper that explained this. 

Other Cabinet Members spoke thanking the Group Head of Planning for a most comprehensive report and for drafting some excellent responses.  They confirmed that infrastructure was a huge issue that needed to be addressed and needed to be specifically linked to development in that it should not happen without the infrastructure being in place first such as highways, doctors and dentist surgeries and that the development of these should be the responsibility for the developer.

The Group Head of Planning in response confirmed that he was noting the comments made and that if Cabinet wanted to add wording or strengthen any of the responses supplied, would they be happy to delegate this authority for him to sort in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning.  Cabinet confirmed that it would be happy for this action to take place.

Other comments made saw Cabinet confirming that it was happy that a more efficient and simplified planning system would follow the White Paper but that this could not come at the cost of local democracy.  Some of the proposals presented were felt to be long overdue but that they missed some integral points, the main one being the climate change agenda and delegation on planning permissions i.e. building out.  There was concern expressed over the large amounts of applications that were not moving forward making land supply worse.  It was felt that the situation around infrastructure should be tied more with the developers and that highways were a big issue as were schools and GP surgeries, just to name a few from a very long list. The ability to have more input with large development was mentioned, as with a significant amount of small developments it was the accumulative effect that was causing concern, who then made the decision and stepped in, in relation to infrastructure and smaller development.

            The Chairman then invited non-Cabinet Members to ask questions.

It was stated that historically, the District’s infrastructure deficit had restricted Arun’s ability to attract inward investment to improve the local economy and employment opportunities, this was why the existing local plan had sought to address north/south connectivity, it was felt that this area of planning needed to be included in the white paper as part of Arun’s response.   The Duty to Co-operate was introduced to ensure cross border and strategic matters would be addressed in areas without returning to the County structure plan rather than removing the Duty to Co-operate.  It was felt that this should be extended to include infrastructure providers who had a responsibility.  The removal of Section 106 and CIL was felt to be significant and would influence the delivery of infrastructure and so needed to be addressed in the Council’s response. 

Others spoke confirming that they were delighted to see that the Council’s priorities were sustainability, climate change and affordable housing. Concerns were expressed as to how authorities would respond to the remaining constraints evidence and in view of the District’s unique location. Concern was also expressed over-growth and renewal areas. Overall, it was agreed that the responses provided formed a robust series of responses on these issues. It was outlined that a firm response needed to be added to ensure that the District’s farmland was retained. Agreement was given to the idea of requisitioning land previous offered for landowners up rather than taking it from them. Any proportion on growth and renewal zones?

            The Cabinet

                        RESOLVED

                        To note the contents, of and proposals, within the White Paper, and agree to the responses to the consultation questions contained within Appendix 1, with the comments raised at the meeting being added to the responses by the Group Head of Planning in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning.

The Cabinet confirmed its decision as per Decision Notice C/019/191020, a copy of which is attached to the signed copy of the Minutes.