Agenda item

'The New Planning System'

The Executive Councillor for Strategic Planning and Housing, Councillor N J Guyatt, to introduce Dr M Bingham, Deputy Director, Department of Communities and Local Government who is to lead the debate on 'The New Planning System'.

The Chairman reminded Members of the decision by the Council to suspend Council Procedure Rule 11 (Rules of Debate) to enable headline debates and “White Paper” proposals to be discussed by Members in an open manner.  The Council, therefore,

RESOLVED

  that Council Procedure Rule 11 (Rules of Debate) be suspended for the duration of the discussion on Minute No. 56 during which time the Common Law Rules of Debate be observed by Members and applied by the Chairman.

The Chairman invited the Executive Councillor for Strategic Planning and Housing, Councillor N J Guyatt to open the debate by introducing Dr M Bingham, Deputy Director, Department of Communities and Local Government who was present to explain how the proposed planning system might operate in practice in Huntingdonshire.

By way of a powerpoint presentation, Dr Bingham explained that it was the Government’s vision to devolve power, controls and responsibility to the lowest possible levels of authority such as Town and Parish Councils, Districts and in some instances, even individuals.  It was the objective to encourage citizens to become active in driving improvements in their local areas and to generate the idea of local ownership and democratic control of communities and the life of individuals.  He added that this ethos was particularly fundamental in planning as it was hoped it would deliver a plan-led system that empowered local people to shape their surroundings whilst facilitating sustainable growth and encouraging the idea that development could positively develop a community.

To secure these changes, Dr Bingham described the various forms which had been proposed by the Government.  Principally these were led by the Localism Act which, in terms of planning, would abolish regional strategies, expect local authorities to address cross-boundary issues in Plans, offer Town and Parish Councils the opportunity to produce neighbourhood plans and introduce the community infrastructure levy to channel, more effectively, the contributions received from developers towards those communities in which development might take place.  In addition, the Act would place an obligation on developers to consult those most likely to be affected by way of comprehensive pre-application consultation.  Decision making on major infrastructure also would be returned to Ministers.

The second major Reform would be the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) – which would contain streamlined and accessible national planning policy designed to promote sustainable development whilst protecting and enhancing the natural historic environment.  It was the expectation that the final version of the Framework would be published at the end of March.  Dr Bingham drew attention to several issues in the Framework which included the commitment to a “Town Centre First” policy, requirements for market and affordable housing, green belt protection and policies on low carbon renewable energy and development in flood risk areas.  Lastly, the Council was informed that it was the Government’s intention to de-regulate and simplify the planning system by reviewing the Use Classes Order, widening permitted development rights and requiring the determination of applications within specified timescales.

In terms of the responsibility of a local planning authority, Dr Bingham reminded Members that Huntingdonshire would need to maintain an up to date local plan, which as far as possible, met the needs of the area, provided support to neighbourhood planning bodies, thought strategically about infrastructure planning and streamlined local procedures.  Despite all these requirements, Dr Bingham assured the Council that the basic elements of planning remained the same and that local planning authorities remained at the heart of the planning system. 

In the questions that followed, Dr Bingham confirmed, in response to a question from Councillor R J West, that the framework did not contain specific proposals to strengthen the role of the planning authority in the protection of existing heritage and conservation.

Whilst welcoming the Government’s intention to simplify the planning system, Councillor M F Shellens drew attention to the continuing conflict between those who wished to protect the green belt and those who wanted to build houses.  Dr Bingham suggested that whilst this would always remain a problem for planners, the Government was at least hopeful of involving communities in neighbourhood planning, establishing compulsory community engagement and providing incentives to accept development in suitable locations by the provision of CIL.  Councillor J A Gray raised the issue of wind farms and his frustration at the inability to penalise retrospective planning applications.  In conceding that the development of wind farms would continue to be an emotive issue, Dr Bingham could not anticipate any change in the Government’s approach to their location.  He added that freedom to allow local authorities to set their own planning fees still was under consideration by Ministers although there was a general direction in place to assist local authorities in establishing strong measures to address those who choose to develop without permission.

Referring to the District Council’s aborted consultation on gypsies and travellers, Councillor P M D Godfrey asked what the timescale would be for the issue of Government Policy in this respect given the difficulty in which the District had found itself in having to respond to applications and appeals.  Dr Bingham confirmed that the Council’s approach to such applications should remain un-changed at present.  Whilst the Government had undertaken specific consultation on gypsies and travellers he was unable to comment on how this would be taken forward.

In response to a series of questions from Councillors Mrs M Banerjee, R S Farrer, P G Mitchell and T V Rogers, Dr Bingham replied that the position of an Inspector should be strengthened by the NPPF and the duty to publish a local plan, that the involvement of Councillors in the planning process should remain unchanged, that a local plan should continue to prescribe the design standards which a local authority might aspire to and that design briefs would continue to play an important role in this respect and that the duty to co-operate would form one of the tests of soundness for local plans as authorities would have to demonstrate that they have consulted adequately. 

Referring to the objective in the NPPF – Planning for People, Councillor P J Downes discussed the situation whereby there were insufficient smaller homes available in villages for elderly people and a tendency for the planning system to reject such development when it came forward.  Dr Bingham suggested that key to the new system would be the opportunity for a community to realise small development through a neighbourhood plan order and the community right to build.  Planning policy would not be as restrictive as previously in this respect.

In answer to a further series of questions from Councillors J D Ablewhite, S M Van De Kerkhove and P D Reeve, Dr Bingham commented that the new system presented a genuine opportunity for a community to realise a specific scheme within its area providing that such development did not depart from strategic policy, that the general provision for referendum had been deleted from the Localism Bill, that neighbourhood plans would be required to “fit” local plans and consequently accord with the national framework and that neighbourhood planning could not be used as a means to block development.  Dr Bingham reaffirmed his understanding that there would be no change to the role of the Planning Inspectorate.  In his view, the Inspectorate was a highly respected body with a good reputation.  He added that it was important to retain an independent body to satisfy the right of an individual to a second opinion.  Finally, Dr Bingham confirmed that should it be established that a statutory body had not acted reasonably in advice which may have been given to a local planning authority, that body could be made liable for costs in the event of a successful appeal.

Councillor Guyatt thanked Dr Bingham for his presentation and concluded by urging the Government to allow local authorities to set the level of Council Tax to meet the cost of necessary infrastructure that CIL alone could not provide and that such investment be directed towards the eastern region and the areas which generally are generating most growth.