Agenda item

This report sets out the next steps and work required on the Local Plan in preparation for the Regulation 19 consultation in November 2025.

Recommendation:

That the Local Plan Sub Committee notes the contents of this report.

The Head of Planning Policy and Conservation presented a report which set out the work stages which had been completed, next steps, and work required on the Local Plan in preparation for a Regulation 19 Consultation in November 2025.

The sub-committee noted that the new NPPF had been released in December 2024, and that the Regulation 19 draft Plan would therefore need to be prepared against that document.  The required updates to the Local Housing Needs Assessment and the Economic Study had been completed and were summarised in topic papers later on the agenda.

The Head of Planning Policy and Conservation summarised the following key points:

·        The Plan was required to cover a period of 15 years from adoption, starting with the current year.  As adoption was expected in 2026, the Plan would cover the period 2025 - 2041 (i.e. a period of 16 years) which resulted in a total of 13,312 dwellings across the plan period using the new standard method target of 832 dwellings per annum.  When existing commitments such as planning permissions and a windfall allowance were factored in, this figure fell to c.11,500 dwellings.  This represented the approximate number of new homes which would need to be planned for prior to taking the Green Belt into consideration.

·        The Green Belt Review would help to assess which areas of the District now fell under the new definition of ‘Grey Belt’ and whether the development proposed in the plan would fundamentally undermine the remaining Green Belt.  The Government had advised that it would shortly be publishing updated Planning Practice Guidance on the Green Belt.  This was expected to include a new Green Belt review methodology and a standard approach. The Government had stated that this would be released by the end of January; however, it was still awaited at the current time and the Green Belt review was unable to proceed until the new methodology was known.  Once it became available a tender process could be finalised in order to select consultants to work on the review.  Officers confirmed that funding had been applied for to cover the costs associated with this work.  The Head of Planning Policy and Conservation highlighted that the Green Belt Review was an important piece of evidence work not just because of the potential policy and site assessment implications, but also because it needed to be completed before officers could judge the level of growth which might be accommodated within the District.   The latter would help to inform the potential for removing sites based on their impact on the remaining or wider Green Belt.  This in turn would have an impact on further evidence work and thus may also affect the timeline for the production of the draft Plan.

·        Officers were working on putting together a draft list of sites in anticipation of the need for this to help inform the Green Belt review work.  A Call for Sites was currently being undertaken, asking for developers and landowners to come forward with any potential new sites not previously considered.  Brownfield sites were preferred but greenfield, Green Belt and employment sites would also be considered as there was a chance that those sites, even if located in the Green Belt, may prove preferable to an existing identified Green Belt site.  It was important for all of the available options to be able to be considered.  Any new sites would be assessed through the Strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment.  Together with a review of previously submitted sites, a list of draft sites would then be produced.  The Urban Capacity Study was also being updated as part of the search for brownfield sites, and all of the site review work would be undertaken in-house by officers. 

·        The Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment was being finalised.  C. 47 pitches would be needed, and it was expected that these would be found by looking at a combination of expanding existing Gypsy and Traveller sites and potentially finding some new sites.

·        Work was being done with Sport England to finalise the tender for the Open Space, Sport and Recreation studies.  These studies could take up to 12 months to complete; however, officers had seen examples of shorter timelines and the tender process should reveal whether faster production would be possible.  If timescales required, it was possible that this work could form part of a Supplementary Planning Document rather than delaying Plan production.

·        The Infrastructure Delivery Plan, Integrated Impact Assessment, Whole Plan Viability, Transport Assessment and Strategic Flood Risk Assessment would rely on the proposed level of growth having been identified, and sites and policies having been agreed.  It would therefore also require the Green Belt Review to have been completed, although baseline work could be undertaken in preparation in order to help compress the timeline.  These workstreams would all be undertaken by external consultants and could be done in tandem as none had any impact on the others save for potential cross-feeding of data.  Data from these studies would be used to inform final decision making on sites and policies, alongside Sustainability Appraisal work.  The Sustainability Appraisal was required to be used as part of decision making and would also be consulted on alongside the Regulation 19 draft Plan.

·        The Head of Planning Policy and Conservation highlighted that the timescale for the production of the draft Plan was very tight for all aspects of the work.  Therefore overlap and evidence work created a risk in terms of potential slippage.  However, officers were taking all steps possible to ensure that the work was completed as smoothly as possible.

Officers responded to questions arising from the report and the following points were raised:

·        Officers had been asked to review any brownfield sites which had previously been submitted but which had been ruled out as unsuitable, and also to review the housing numbers on all of the existing sites to check that these were not now lower than previously anticipated.

·        Once the updated Planning Practice Guidance on the Green Belt had been received, the tender process to appoint a consultant was expected to take c. 4 weeks.   It would then take a further c. 2 months for usable data to become available, depending on the methodology requirements.

·        It was suggested that, in light of the higher level of housing need which was required to be met a Regulation 18 consultation should be undertaken, particularly as substantively different housing numbers may be sought for existing identified sites and new sites would be proposed.  It was questioned whether additional legal advice on the need for a Regulation 18 consultation was required.  Officers responded that informal discussions with legal advisers had indicated that where there was no substantive change to the overall growth strategy, and where there were only a few new sites, a Regulation 18 consultation was not required.  Additionally, a Regulation 18 consultation had previously been carried out on a much higher growth number.  It was noted that a Regulation 18 consultation (which required a consultation period of at least 6 weeks) would jeopardise the tight timescale for delivery of the Plan.  However, if a significant new individual site were proposed which had not been consulted on in any of the three previous Regulation 18 consultations, then a consultation would likely need to be undertaken in relation to that individual site.  Alternatively, an additional sites consultation could be undertaken.  It was suggested that this issue be revisited at the March meeting, once the Call for Sites process had ended and the viable proposed sites were known.  In the meantime the Chair undertook to discuss with officers the procurement of more formal legal advice on the need for Regulation 18 consultation.

·        Questions were raised in relation to the feasibility of the timescale for the delivery of the Plan, given that only 8 months remained until October when a Regulation 19 draft Plan was expected to be considered by Council.  In response it was acknowledged that the timescale was ambitious, but noted that it had been agreed by Full Council as the timescale which should be aimed for.  Additional resources had been, and would continue to be, made available to support delivery in accordance with this timeframe, notwithstanding that achieving it would be dependent on a number of factors, many of which were outside officers’ control.  The timescale would be kept under review in the event that significant changes to the Plan were identified and there was some limited time contingency as the Local Development Scheme included provision for a Regulation 19 consultation starting in February 2026; however, this would only be used as a very last resort.  In debate it was agreed that officers should provide regular updates (which would need to be in the Part II confidential agenda) to the sub-committee on compliance with the timeframe to provide assurance to Members.  It was also noted that any external consultants would need to be cognisant of the time constraints.

RESOLVED:

That the Local Plan Sub-Committee:

(i)             notes the contents of the report;

(ii)            agrees to receive progress updates at forthcoming meetings, noting that this should be by way of a simple oral report which should not be onerous for officers; and

(iii)           requests that officers seek further legal advice regarding the appropriateness of a Regulation 18 consultation.