Agenda item

'The Planning Aspects of the Localism Bill'

The Executive Councillor for Planning Strategy and Transport, Councillor D B Dew will lead the Council debate on this subject with the assistance of the Head of Planning Services.

(See Minute No. 71 for Members’ interests). 

The Chairman invited Councillor D B Dew, Executive Councillor for Planning Strategy and Transport to open the debate on the “Planning Aspects of the Localism Bill”.  Councillor Dew was assisted by the Head of Planning Services, Mr S Ingram who, as part of his address referred to a power point presentation (a copy of which is appended in the Minute Book).  Mr Ingram undertook to forward copies of the presentation to Members after the meeting.

As background, Mr Ingram outlined the aims and aspirations of the Bill in terms of planning and the underlying objective to enable local communities to take planning decisions to shape their surroundings by use of Neighbourhood Development Plans and Development Orders, Community Right to Build Orders, the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and other incentives to encourage the acceptance of additional growth.  Mention also was made of the requirement for pre-application consultation with local communities, increased enforcement powers and the establishment of a new major infrastructure planning unit.  Notwithstanding these initiatives, it was the view of the presenters that Members and local authorities would continue to have a crucial role to play in reconciling strategic planning with local interests and in supporting and enabling the neighbourhood planning process.

In the questions that followed from Councillors G S E Thorpe and T V Rogers, Mr Ingram explained that the term “Neighbourhood” could refer to a parish or town or community within a town.  He foresaw difficulties with the process particularly in circumstances when issues arise that impact upon neighbouring communities and confirmed that the existing planning appeal system would remain unchanged although there was some debate that the current appeal process required to be streamlined.  In response to a question from Councillor N J Guyatt, Mr Ingram confirmed that the principle of “Green Belt” or “Village Limits” would remain but he anticipated that this could cause difficulties if a community wished to pursue a development beyond village limits.  Following a further question from Councillor P G Mitchell, Mr Ingram indicated that an application for development of agricultural land could be supported if it complied with the settlement hierarchy and was supported by a local community.  In terms of the removal of illegal signs, Councillor Dew agreed with the questioner, Councillor C R Hyams that this practice and the issue of fines would be resource intensive and that if the District Council was required to manage this process then the need for additional resources would have to be addressed.

Whilst generally positive about the impact of the Localism Bill on planning, Councillor P J Downes stated that it was premature to make assumptions about potential new planning provisions without having first considered the detailed Regulations.  However, he expressed concern about the potential for inter-village hostility and for an increase in house prices because of the need for developers to be able to respond financially to CIL, Section 106 Agreements and the New Homes Bonus.

Mr Ingram acknowledged the view that the Bill, whilst well-meaning, appeared to contain a complex mix of processes and procedures but he was optimistic about the significant financial benefit which might be generated by CIL.

Councillor P D Reeve contended that, in his opinion, much of the Localism Bill would not be of any advantage to local communities.  He drew attention to Clause 90 of the Bill relating to the duty to co-operate on the planning of sustainable development, the potential for significant fines if this duty was not fulfilled and the impact this Clause might have on the District Council. 

Councillor Dew concurred with the speaker that the implementation of the subsequent Regulations would be an extremely difficult process and that he was firmly of the view that local communities were more inclined to campaign against further development rather than seek for ways to achieve it.  In terms of the weight accorded to the Localism Bill as a material planning consideration, Mr Ingram advised Councillor P L E Bucknell that a local planning authority would continue to determine development applications in accordance with local and national policy, but specific proposals would still be required to be submitted to the Department of Communities and Local Government for approval and that reference to regional spatial strategies would remain part of a local development plan.

In answer to questions from Councillors J D Ablewhite and R J West, Councillor Dew confirmed that as far as he was aware, the Localism Bill had not made any recommendations in respect of “design” nor indicated how the additional resources required to support the operating costs of the new process could be met by local authorities.  However, he added that the cost of holding a local referendum would have to be met by the District Council although parishes could, be requested, to make a contribution to these costs.

In response to a question from Councillor S M Van De Kerkhove as to whether it was the intention for the financial rewards arising under the New Homes Bonus to be directed towards those wards where a greater number of housing development had taken place, Councillor Dew replied that although having some sympathy with the questioner, he was not aware that there was a specific directive in this regard although the issue required further clarification.

Councillor J W Davies suggested that whilst the topic had been appropriate for debate, it was premature to make assumptions about the future of planning in the community without further detail and clarification.

The Leader of the Council, Councillor I C Bates, made reference to the extent of the Localism Bill and the need to keep its content under review given the likelihood of change as it progressed through Parliament.

To conclude the debate, Councillor Dew indicated that he would welcome the opportunity to discuss any issues which Members might wish to raise on the planning aspects of the Localism Bill outside of the meeting.