Issue - meetings

(Planning Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C-003-2013/14).

(1)        That the experience of other authorities in applying the National Planning Policy Framework over the last year, including any lessons learnt, be noted; and

(2)        That, following comparison of the Council’s existing policies against the National Planning Policy Framework, the policies rated as compliant, generally compliant or partially compliant be continued to be used until the adoption of the new Local Plan supersedes them; and

(3)        That any policy found to be outdated be given little or no weight hereafter;

(4)        That the weighting to be given to a particular planning policy be highlighted in the planning application report considered by Area Planning Sub-Committees; and

(5)       That the experience of other Councils when their Local Plans were Examined in Public be noted and measures be taken to ensure this Council avoided the problems others had encountered to date.

The Planning Portfolio Holder introduced a report on the National Planning Policy Framework, one year after its introduction, and invited the Director of Planning & Economic Development to present it.

The Director stated that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was a relatively short document, which had been issued by the Government following a consultation period. It had replaced a large number of lengthy Planning Policy Statements and Guidance Notes, which were often duplicated or conflicted with one another, and which had been issued over a long period of time. This report had followed on from a similar report considered at the Local Plan Cabinet Committee on 25 March 2013 and more information had been provided on those policies considered non-compliant.

The Director advised the Cabinet that policy GB9A, residential conversions of existing buildings within the Green Belt, had been reviewed again since the Cabinet Committee meeting, including further legal advice from Counsel. Whilst there was no legal requirement to actually delete policies that were non compliant until a new Local Plan had formally superseded them, some appeal decisions had described policies as “out of date.” In those cases, the decision taker had concluded that out of date policies should be accorded little or no weight when reaching a decision. Therefore, it was proposed that those adopted policies considered to be non-compliant with the NPPF should remain part of the statutory development plan but be given little or no weight hereafter; in effect, such non-compliant policies would be superseded by the relevant parts of the NPPF.

The Cabinet received further advice from Counsel that non-compliant policies remained relevant when making decisions until they were replaced by the new policies within the Local Plan. Therefore, all planning applications and appeals had to be determined in accordance with existing policies, even if they were currently given little or no weight. If a current policy was not compliant with the NPPF then it should not be given full weight in any decision-making as this could give rise to problems at Appeal hearings, including the potential award of costs against the Council.

The Director of Planning & Economic Development drew the Cabinet’s attention to the experiences of other Councils in bringing forward their new Local Plans. Data from a report by Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners indicated that out of 55 Local Plans submitted for examination:

·                     55% of Councils had submitted a plan proposing a reduction in the housing target;

·                     only 18 Local Plans had been found sound;

·                     44% of Councils had to increase their submitted housing target in order to be found sound;

·                     5 of the Local Plans found sound were subject to an immediate or early review of their housing target;

·                     2 Local Plans were withdrawn due to concerns about their potential soundness; and

·                     only 2 Local Plans were found sound with a housing target lower than both the Regional Strategy and household projections, but both were subject to early review.

The Director stressed that the clear message was for Councils to objectively assess  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7

(Director of Planning & Economic Development) To consider the attached report (LPC-011-2012/13).

Recommended to the Cabinet:

(1)        That the experience of other authorities in applying the National Planning Policy Framework over the last year, including any lessons learnt, be noted;

(2)        That, following comparison of the Council’s existing policies against the National Planning Policy Framework, the policies rated as compliant, generally compliant or partially compliant be continued to be used until the adoption of the new Local Plan superseded them;

(3)        That those existing policies rated as non-compliant be subject to a further report to the meeting of the Cabinet scheduled for 10 June 2013; and

(4)        That the experience of other Councils when their Local Plans were Examined in Public be noted and measures taken to ensure this Council avoided the problems encountered to date.

The Director of Planning & Economic Development presented an update report on the National Planning Policy Framework, one year after its implementation.

The Director stated that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was a relatively short document which was issued by the Government following consultation and revisions to a consultation draft. It had replaced a large number of lengthy Policy Statements and Guidance Notes which were often duplicated or conflicted with one another, and which had been issued over a long period of time. It was highlighted that this first year had been a transition period, after which if Local Plan policies were not compliant with the Framework, then the Framework was likely to be given more weight in Development Control decisions. Particular attention was drawn to policy GB8a, Change of Use or Adaption of Buildings in the Green Belt, and that the criterion in paragraph (iv) of the policy was no longer compliant with the Framework.

The Director highlighted the local and national experience with the Framework, and the Cabinet Committee’s attention was drawn to the issues that other Councils had experienced in bringing their new Local Plans forward. A number of Councils had run into significant problems at the Examination in Public stage, where Planning Inspectors had reached conclusions that had forced the submitted Plans back to a much earlier stage in the procedure. The key issues identified so far had included: the adequacy of population projections and the suggested housing numbers; review of the Green Belt; and failures over the duty to co-operate. The problems experienced by Dacorum Borough Council, Rushcliffe Borough Council and Coventry City Council were particularly emphasised.

The Cabinet Committee was asked to consider and agree a list of Local Plan policies which were now non-compliant with the Framework and which would not now be used in relation to development control management decisions; and a list of policies which were compliant and which could be used until they were superseded by the adoption of a new Local Plan, or until such time as appeal decisions warranted their discontinuation. The Council’s existing policies had been examined by Development Control Officers, Forward Planning Officers and Legal Counsel in determining whether a policy was compliant, generally compliant, partially compliant or not compliant. The amended policy lists, if agreed, would be published on the Council’s website and Member briefings would also be considered.

The Planning Portfolio Holder commented that the experience of other Councils had indicated the complexity of the Local Plan process, but that it was also important to study those Councils who had successfully passed their Examinations in Public to learn any lessons from their approach. It was clear that there were problems with Employment policies in other Districts being found unsound. The Assistant Director of Planning & Economic Development (Policy & Conservation) added that the Framework required Councils to be flexible over employment sites, especially when the emerging employment trends were considered. Officers were currently analysing the completed Town Centre Studies and other designated employment zones; more information  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40