Agenda item

(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compliant, generally compliant or partially compliant be continued to be used until the adoption of the new Local Plan superseded them;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 would be available later in the year on Economic Forecasting from the Department of Communities & Local Government. The Director confirmed that the Framework gave greater emphasis to economic growth and employment.

The Cabinet Committee was advised that the Council should complete the work on its employment policies and that, as 92% of the District was designated as Green Belt, the Council should perform a strategic review of it as soon as possible. The problems experienced by Rushcliffe Borough council also illustrated why accurate and relevant population data was critical to the success of the Local Plan. The opinion was expressed that the Framework could be more useful to the Council than first thought, as it set out the default position that would apply which the Local Plan would overrule if it was found sufficiently sound.

The Portfolio Holder reassured the Cabinet Committee that the Council was in discussions with neighbouring authorities over various issues, including Harlow District Council, although there was some uncertainty over the arbitration process. The Director of Planning & Economic Development clarified that the Council needed to co-operate with other Councils over the Local Plan, but that if one neighbouring Council was dissatisfied over a proposal then the onus was on the Councils involved to resolve it. The Council should not continue regardless and hope that the Planning Inspector would find in its favour at the Examination in Public, as experience so far had shown that the Planning Inspector would send the Council back to an earlier stage in the process to resolve the dispute.

Members expressed serious concerns about deleting planning policies which had been relied upon when making planning decisions. The Green Belt was the single, most important planning issue to residents, as borne out by the Issues & Options consultation and the recent Member workshops. It was felt that the Council should recognise the non-compliant policies but not delete them. The Leader of the Council agreed that the Council should not delete policies that had been used for many years with support from residents. The Leader proposed that the compliant, generally compliant and partially compliant policies should be agreed for continued use, whilst Officers should provide more information regarding the non-compliant polices and the decision on whether to delete them or not should be deferred to the meeting of the Cabinet scheduled for 10 June 2013. The Director of Planning & Economic Development undertook to review the conformity rating again for policy GB9a, Residential Conversions (in the Green Belt), before it was considered by the Cabinet, to provide more information about use of the policies at appeal during the last year and to provide more information in a table about the Plans submitted to Planning Inspectors in the last year which had been overturned; in particular were they Core Strategies, Development Plan Documents or Local Plans.

Recommended:

(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.

Reasons for Decision:

It was now necessary to consider the degree of consistency of the Council’s Local Plan policies by determining their degree of compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework and give some prominence to those compliant policies which the Council would continue to use. It was sensible to draw on the experience of other authorities during the operation of the Framework and utilise any lessons for the benefit of the Council.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

To simply rely on the National Planning Policy Framework until such time as a new Local Plan had gone through more of its procedural stages. However, this would mean that planning applications would be determined by nationally derived policies only rather than those developed at a District level through the preparation of the Local Plan.