Issue - meetings

This report provides an overview of the proposals contained within the Government’s consultation on reforms to national planning policy and other changes to the planning system published on 30th July 2024 and seeks approval of the officer response to the consultation.

Recommendation

That the Local Plan Sub-Committee note the contents of this report, and approve the draft officer response to the consultation in Appendix 1.

Aaron Roberts, Senior Planning Officer, presented the report which provided an an overview of the proposals contained within the Government’s consultation on reforms to national planning policy and other changes to the planning system published on 30th July 2024 and sought approval of the officer response to the consultation in Appendix 1 to this report. The officer highlighted the key changes.

Question 1

A Member asked for the following wording to be removed “It could be It could be interpreted in the proposed new NPPF that constrained districts may be able to justify lower housing delivery targets if they can evidence that they have “taken all possible steps, including optimising density, sharing need with neighbouring authorities, and reviewing Green Belt boundaries, before a lower housing requirement will be considered” (wording taken from the consultation document). This would suggest that the standard method is not, in practice, “mandatory”, as alluded to in the draft NPPF”.

RESOLVED: that the Local Plan Sub-Committee AGREED that the wording be removed as above.

Question 2

A Member disagreed with the country-wide approach and felt that the first sentence in the officer response should be removed. Officers responded that the labour market and the green belt had little to do with calculating housing need. Officers approach was based around constraint and not being able to meet that need.

RESOLVED: that Members AGREED that the last line be tightened up as the ability to contest the prescribed standard method, due to local constraints, was essential.

Question 3

A Member fundamentally disagreed with the officer’s response and felt that the Council should not support the removal of the urban uplift.

RESOLVED: that Members AGREED that the urban uplift should not be removed.

Question 4

No comments from Members.

Question 5

RESOLVED: that Members AGREED that the word “partially” be removed and the wording to reflect localised areas in the first sentence be revised.

Question 6

No comments from Members.

Question 7

RESOLVED: that Members AGREED that the response be re-worded to state that the Council does not agree with a 5-year specific deliverable housing land supply.

Question 8

No comments from Members.

Question 9

RESOLVED: that Members AGREED to add that it is an unnecessary and had no accountability.

Question 10

RESOLVED: that Members AGREED that N/A be removed and repeat the response to question 9 and comment that that TRDC does not agree with a buffer at all.

Question 11

No comments from Members.

Question 12

RESOLVED: that Members AGREED that officers check on the wording of paragraph 27B of NPPF and make it clear in the response that cross co-operation must not be imposed upon the TRDC.

Question 13

No comments from Members.

Question 14

No comments from Members.

Questions 15-19

RESOLVED: that Members AGREED that officers would re-write the responses objecting to all of them apart from question 18 where it would be stated rental affordability should be a factor in the standard method and reflect the particular local circumstances of the area. Officers would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43