Agenda item

Report of the Strategic Director of Place

The Planning Policy Team Manager presented the report to Members, drawing attention to the proposed consultation document at appendix A.  Further to the report, he referred to the additional document circulated at the meeting, which detailed the intention of government to consult on further changes to the standard methodology for identifying housing requirements.

Regarding the household projections and the plan to address the shortfall Councillor V Richichi asked the following questions:

-     Were there any approved outline planning permissions within the five-year housing land supply and if so, would a challenge to the five-year housing land supply be difficult to defend because of them?

-     Were the approved outline planning permissions deliverable and if so, was it all of them or just a percentage?

-     Were any of the approved outline planning permissions problematic in any way, as in the past developers had reduced the number of affordable homes and the Council could not refuse due to the risk of placing the local plan in jeopardy.

-     Was the Council in a position where the approved outline permissions were being reviewed and in affect land banking?

-     How many approved outline planning permissions had been activated in the past twelve months? Also, if all inactivated permissions were no longer included, would the Council still have a five-year land supply?

-     How many of the approved outline planning permissions had actually been built and was the five-year housing land supply affected?

The Planning Policy Team Manager explained that following assessments, the Council still had a five-year housing land supply, which did include a number of approved outline permissions.  All of these permissions were either in ongoing discussions about a further reserved matter application or already had a reserved matter application; therefore, he was confident that they were all deliverable.  He was also confident that the five-year housing land supply could be defended.  Regarding the number of approved outline permissions that had been activated, he did not have the exact figures but he stated that over the past two and a half years, the build rate had increased and indeed just under 1000 homes had been built in the last year. 

Councillor V Richichi referred to an appeal decision from Woolpit, Suffolk where the Inspector criticised the Council because they decided that any application should be included in their five-year land supply.  The Planning Policy Team Manager was aware of the appeal decision and reminded Councillor V Richichi that each case was considered by the inspector on its own merit. 

Councillor J Legrys was concerned that within a public consultation the housing requirement was a little ambiguous.  He commented that he would like to see more nature corridors within the District, as well as the number of takeaway restaurants being addressed.  He agreed with the proposals to address the need for Gypsies and travellers as part of the review rather than a separate planning document.  He commented that it was a difficult matter as not all residents would be happy but a transit site was needed.

In response to a question from Councillor D Harrison, the Planning Policy Team Leader stated that he did not envisage any definitive proposals on a site for Gypsies and Travellers before May 2019.  Councillor D Harrison stressed the importance of identifying the correct site, as he felt it would not be used if it was in the wrong place.

Councillor J G Coxon agreed with the needs of gypsies and travellers being addressed as part of the review but felt that it should not be diluted as it was of equal importance as the Local Plan.  The Planning Policy Team Manager strongly agreed.

In response to a question from Councillor J G Coxon, the Planning Policy Team Manager confirmed that his team were working with the Business Focus Team in relation to employment land.

It was moved by Councillor J Legrys, seconded by Councillor R Adams and

RESOLVED THAT:

a)   Appendix A to the report (subject to the inclusion of the settlement hierarchy) be approved for consultation.

b)  The needs of Gypsies and travellers be addressed as part of the local plan review.