Issue - meetings

Members considered the Council’s proposed responses to the government’s “Planning for the Future” consultation which sought views on each part of a package of proposals for “reform of the planning system in England to streamline and modernise the planning process, improve outcomes on design and sustainability, reform developer contributions and ensure more land is available for development where it is needed”.

The Chairman confirmed that she had requested a copy of the full consultation document to be placed in the Members’ room for all Councillors to view. As yet, there was no copy in the Members’ Room for Councillors to read and she asked if one could be placed there as soon as possible.

Councillor Fawthrop requested the response at Q5 (paragraph 3.11) draw the Government’s attention to the importance of protecting Locally Listed Buildings and Areas of Special Residential Character.  National Guidelines should not override these.

He also asked that the response include a statement to emphasise that when the Government implements the new proposals, Councils be given a 12-18 month delay to allow them to designate areas accordingly.

The Assistant Director, Planning and Building Control agreed to Councillor Fawthrop’s requests.

Councillor Allen considered the proposals removed a significant amount of control from the Council; a duty to co-operate was still needed.

In relation to the 5-year housing supply, Councillor Allen was not sure that brownfield sites would help in the delivery of housing or guard against environmental concerns.  However, she was satisfied that the Council was objecting in a constructive way in its response.

Councillor Huntington-Thresher raised the following points:-

·  In its response, the Council should state that it supports a designation of renewal and while there was still a chance for a poorly designed scheme to go ahead, special circumstances would need to be provided.

·  In terms of planning fees, it should be made clear that the Council needed to recover the costs of the planning authority.

·  The Local Plan should be updated via supplementary documents.

·  The Council was not able to confirm if CIL calculations were positive or not. The Authority could find itself in a position of not having enough CIL funding to cover new GP surgeries, public transport, crossings etc.  The Council’s response should, therefore, state that whatever is set by policy should deliver the Council with enough funds to cover infrastructure etc.

In relation to designations, the Chairman pointed out the considerable overlap between growth and renewal.  The Assistant Director, Planning and Building Control stated there was not enough detail in the consultation and the proposed response was attempting to say that it was something the Council may support at a later date.

Councillor Owen suggested that the response include reference to the need for action to be taken where developers build without planning permission.

Councillor Owen also pointed out that many coming of the sites coming forward for development were small local sites.  The Council should, therefore, be able to determine what is best for the borough.

The Assistant Director,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38