Agenda item

To receive an update on the Local Plan Work Programme.

The Director of Planning introduced the report and provided an update on the progress of the Local Plan Work Programme. He highlighted that there would be a full complement of staff working on the Plan from next month and the progress which new staff made would determine if there was a need to bring a revised Local Plan timetable to Cabinet in June. 

Following the officer’s introduction, the Chair asked the public speakers if they felt that their questions had been answered. The speakers re-emphasised their concerns around the issue of secrecy, particularly when holding working groups which were not open to the public. They requested that the use of language to describe these meetings be reconsidered.

Mr Haynes raised further concerns about the quality of evidence within heritage and landscape studies, as well as the lack of reference to the neighbourhood plans. The Director of Planning confirmed that officers were committed to reviewing neighbourhood plan evidence and factoring it in during plan development. Councillor Evans echoed this, and highlighted the significance of evidence attached to the neighbourhood plans.

Members discussed the update on the Local Plan work programme, and the following was noted:

• The Director of Planning clarified that Regulation 18 was the point at which interested parties would be consulted on the proposals of the Local Plan. The Local Plan Team had often received correspondence, requesting progress updates and providing evidence. Whilst officers were happy to consider additional evidence, they were unable to resource mini-consultations with various groups in the lead up to the main consultation.
• Officers would approach relevant parties where they identify a point of clarification or gap in the evidence base.
• The recently withdrawn Regulation 18 Plan wasn’t a failed plan and a significant amount of evidence remained available and useful. Officers were in the process of reviewing the evidence base and identifying the gaps which needed to be bridged.
• The Development Strategy, and officers' professional opinion was that the prospective housing numbers could not be achieved through only extending existing settlements and a new settlement was needed in the longer term. The Director of Planning suggested this should be seen as working hypothesis and all the work had yet to be completed to confirm this.
• The Strategic Housing Land Assessment would be published for consultation with the rest of the draft Local Plan in order to allow interested parties to make an informed response and to avoid the potential distractions that could arise and affect progress when information is provided in parts. The draft plan and associated documents would, however, be available to view in the lead up to consultation when published for consideration in the governance cycle.
• Officers had not been proactively requesting further site submissions but they would be open to considering any new ones if they were viewed as suitable for the Development Strategy within emerging plan.
• As there had been a thorough site assessment process, officers felt that they had exhausted the list of possible sites within the district.
• Evidence was still being gathered for the proposed new settlement hierarchy and officers were not in a position to make any decisions before the upcoming Local Election. The Director of Planning said that as officers were apolitical, the decision would not be determined by a political parties’ preferences and instead be influenced by factors such as infrastructure.

Members welcomed the comments that developing the emerging plan would be approached properly and thoroughly, although some raised concerns around the lack of progress made in the past 4 years. The Chair explained that there was a number of reasons for the delay, including deciding the next steps after the inspectorate decision, the pandemic, and the staffing changes. He hoped that a new plan would be developed quickly for the future of the district and to address the current lack of five-year land supply.

The Director of Planning clarified that a decision to revise the timetable had not yet been confirmed as it was possible that the consultation date could be moved forward, should the team get back on track with their project schedule.

RESOLVED: That LPLG,

a.    Endorses the approach to plan preparation now being taken, as outlined in this report

b.    Agrees a recommendation to Cabinet that the new Local Plan timetable be revised around a Regulation 18 consultation by 27 October 2023

Meeting ended at 20:59