Agenda item

To consider the member motion: Development of an Evaluation Framework for the Uttlesford Sustainable Local Plan & Supplementary Planning Document.

Councillor Isham presented his motion regarding the proposed development of an evaluation framework for the Uttlesford Sustainable Local Plan and supplementary planning document to ensure that Council`s core values were adhered to and that the Council`s highest environmental standards were adopted and implemented now and in the future. He proposed the motion set out on the agenda.

Councillor Light seconded the proposal and asked Council to support this motion to help mitigate Climate Change and shape the future of Uttlesford. She noted that the interim Climate Change Policy approved a year ago included a statement that developers were expected to adhere to this policy, and acknowledged that unfortunately this policy had not yet been implemented.

She went on to explain that the Local Plan was not just about policies for developers, it was about people, opportunities for everyone, employment, education, health and well-being, land management and environment, renewable energy and infrastructure. 

Councillor Evans said that it was not appropriate for the Council to debate the principles of social justice, economic justice and environment justice as part of Local Plan development and would be more appropriate in a central Government political manifesto. He reiterated the importance of focusing on delivering the Local Plan in a timely manner and in a form that stood the best chance of passing examination by the Planning Inspectors. He noted that the Plan was required to meet the test of legality and soundness as set against national policy and the introduction of an additional framework, overseen by an unidentified body would undermine and possibly delay the task. He explained that the first test proposed by Councillor Isham, titled “Real Local Housing Need” called for UDC`s housing assessment to be based on accurate forecast local need, whereas the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) demanded use of standard methodology to determine housing numbers unless exceptional circumstances prescribed otherwise. He confirmed that the Local Plan Leadership Group (LPLG) had already reviewed that topic and no exceptional circumstances were identified. Furthermore, he confirmed that Councillors Light and Isham had been advised by Planning Policy Officers that the motion went well beyond matters that could be justified in pure planning terms.

He noted that a number of the aspirations were excellent and he would like to see them incorporated in due course but some of the suggested policies would not pass the lawfulness test. He reiterated that the policies advanced within the draft Local Plan must be supportable by national policy terms to prevent another failed plan. Furthermore, the Council were statutorily required to include Climate Change, and all other applicable ecological policies, as supplementary planning documents that would be examined alongside the draft Local Plan. Such documents were powerful and had the advantage of being capable of change as needs and evolving policies dictated. He noted that some of Councillor Isham`s objectives were already being obtained by the application of the interim Climate Change policy document. In summary, he said that this motion would not be helpful to the efficient, timely delivery and adoption of the Local Plan and requested that the motion was rejected.

Councillor Bagnall said he disagreed with the motion but fully supported the sentiments behind it. He proposed to raise the issue via the LPLG and suggested that the items could be addressed as a discussion paper to inform policies and supplementary documents.

Councillor Isham confirmed that the motion had been through several iterations and suggested that the framework did not need to be restrictive and could provide suitable flexibility and develop together alongside the Local Plan. He highlighted the need to nail down any ambiguity that was open to interpretation.

Councillor Pavitt said he believed that approval of the motion could potentially compromise the delivery and adoption of the Local Plan.

The Chief Executive said that the Rules of Procedure (Rule 11.5) permitted Members to refer this matter to an appropriate body or individual if Council were minded to.

The Leader of the Council said this could have been addressed through the LPLG. She noted that the advice from Planning Officers was that the expectations set out in the motion were beyond planning requirements and would possible not be approved by the Planning Inspector.

The Chair took the motion to a vote.

The motion was rejected.