The Planning Policy Manager introduced the report which contained the Council’s proposed response to the recent Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill (LURB) that was progressing through the House of Lords for proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Planning Policy Manager shared a presentation with Members setting out the headlines in the NPPF consultation and the implications the changes would have on Swale.

The Chair invited Members to make comments and ask questions on Appendix I of the report.

Question 8 –

Members raised concern that developers often proposed theoretical proposals for improved local transport infrastructure that was never normally followed-up and wondered what could be done to ensure that developments were not completed until the correct infrastructure was in place, as infrastructure deficiencies were also a constraint. 

In response, the Interim Head of Planning Services said that officers did not have sufficient detail in the consultation to properly consider many of the implications. However, when the NPPF came out in 2012, Government had said that a definition on what classed as sustainable development was contained within the NPPF and that legal definition had still not been delivered by Government. She added that Members could write to Government requesting an answer on what was classed as sustainable development, so that they could fully assess the impact on the borough.

Members comments on question 11 included:

·                Sought for clarification on why officers thought the plan needed to be justified;

·                the council needed to consider what the impact of removing the requirement for plans to be justified and needed to carefully consider the response; and

·                concerned that the Government was thinking of removing the requirement of a justified strategy.

The Interim Head of Planning Services responded and said that the officers’ view was that there was not enough information in the consultation for them to provide a more detailed response and suggested to Members that officers could change the answer to say ‘that there was not enough detail in what was being proposed to understand the implications on the local plan process’.

Question 18

Members considered that officers had not sufficiently answered the question and that the answer needed to be amended to say if they supported the additional permissions-based test or not.

The Planning Policy Manager responded to say that officers were happy to change the answer to be clearer and show that they were in support of the additional permissions-based test.

Members comments on question 21 included:

·                Agreed that the focus needed to be on the root causes of under-delivery;

·                wanted to know why the Housing Delivery Test (HDT) was related to the Local Plan?;

·                what was the point of a review on the HDT figures if they were decided along with a local plan?;

·                the Government were constantly changing the HDT figures and local authorities were always playing catch-up; and

·                the Council needed to be strong with their views that it could only deliver on the figures set out in the Council’s plan.

The Planning Policy Manager responded and said that when local plans were prepared, there was an annual figure for each year in the plan period. So, if and when the annual figure was changed outside of the local plan process, it created on uplift on the number of houses to be built. As housing figures in a local plan were agreed, and sites allocated in good faith, local planning authorities should not be penalised for failing to deliver a greater number outside of the local plan process.

Question 22 –

Members raised concerns that affordable homes needed to be more affordable and more were needed in the borough. Members also raised concern on the definition of social rent and wanted clarification as to how social rent was provided. The Planning Policy Manager responded to say that social rent came from a social provider and recognised the need for more genuinely affordable social rent in the borough.

Question 30 –

Members disagreed with the officers’ response and thought that developers behaviour in the past should be taken into account when a decision was being made on an application.

In response, the Interim Head of Planning Services said that officers felt they needed more information before they could give a formal response as applications should be dealt with on their own individual merits and this could cause issues if officers took into account applicants’ previous behaviour.

Members agreed that the officers’ answer should be changed to ‘yes’.

Question 31 –

Members considered that the answer should be ‘yes’ and that both options should be considered and if there were mechanisms in place to determine an application based on the applicants’ previous behaviour, then they should be considered.

The Planning Policy Manager responded to say that officers would be happy to change the response to ‘yes’ and that both options were considered the best, but that more information would be needed.

Question 35 –

Members felt that the Council should clear design plans and have clear requirements of what was required in an application at the beginning stage.

In response, the Planning Policy Manager said that there was a resource implication that needed to be considered with the answer. When there were clear breaches of conditions, the starting point was to see what could be done to overcome the breach. She agreed that officers could reword the answer and try to reinforce good practice.

Question 37 –

Members felt that the response was negative and thought that if the Council could give examples of small things that could be done to intervene then they should be pursued. Members added to their concerns that outline applications were difficult to consider at Planning Committee as they did not always know what the developer was planning on the site. They asked the officers if it would be possible to add to the answer that they felt that outline applications should not be an option for developers when making applications for planning permission.

In response the Planning Policy Manager said design codes could be used to deliver Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG).

In response to the outline applications the Interim Head of Planning Services said that after discussions with the Development Manager, officers could change the answer to express Members’ frustration with outline applications and that Members felt that outline permission did not give any purpose to a planning application. 

Recommended:

(1)      That the proposed consultation response on behalf of the Council be noted subject to the amended changes as minuted.