Agenda item

A report from the Chief Executive.

Councillor Toby Sturgis, Cabinet Member for Spatial Planning, Development Management and Investment, presented a report on how the council should respond to government proposals in respect of the ‘Planning for the Future’ White paper and other changes. Councillor Sturgis introduced the item and noted that the consultation period closed on 29 October 2020, and that as one of the largest planning authorities in the country Wiltshire Council should make a response to that consultation. Councillor Sturgis stated he supported many of the aims of the White Paper, but that there was still some uncertainty on issues such as the changes to the Standard Method for Housing Needs Assessment.

 

Public Statements were then received from Janet Amos on behalf of Amesbury Town Council, Ian James (read by Isabel McCord), Isabel McCord on behalf of Bremhill Parish Council, and Steve Perry.

 

Councillor Sturgis thanked the public speakers for their contributions, and that many of their concerns were reflected in the draft response.

 

Councillor Sturgis moved a motion as set out in Appendix 2, circulated during the meeting, seconded by Councillor Richard Clewer, which included draft responses which would serve as guidance for the preparation of a response on behalf of the Council by the Director of Economic Development and Planning in consultation with the Leader and himself as Cabinet Member. The draft responses took into account the views of Members at a briefing on 2 October 2020 and those attending a meeting on the future of Neighbourhood plans on 9 October 2020 and would further take into account comments made during the council meeting.

 

Councillor Clewer presented the detail of the current draft response to each question, as set out in detail in Supplement 2. He noted that whilst it was proposed the council agree with some of the government proposals, it also included areas of disagreement.

 

Points raised included, but were not limited to:

·       Welcoming improvements to digital access of planning, without disadvantaging those without digital access or less access to high speed internet connections, such as potentially the Travelling community and older people;

·       Priorities included development of connected communities with better enforceable standards of design and master planning and energy efficiency;

·       That the imposition of a zonal planning system in the manner proposed was too simplistic and not appropriate for a large rural area, and that a method to force developers to develop allocated strategic housing sites may be appropriate;

·       Simplified national policies for development management, with minimum standards and some local context, was broadly supportable;

·       A consolidated test for sustainable development including consideration of environmental impact was a good idea;

·       Required formal cooperation between authorities can cause some difficulties, but there are strategic issues where it might be needed;

·       That the council did not support a standard method for establishing housing requirements;

·       Affordability and extent of existing urban areas was not an appropriate indicator of the quantity of development that should be accommodated;

·       There should be automatic outline permission for areas of substantial development once allocated;

·       The council did not support proposals for consent arrangements for renewal and protected areas, as they were too simplistic;

·       That there was a case for allowing new settlements to be brought forward.

·       That the council did not support the proposals to make decision-making faster and more certain, as there would always be cases where local issues were complex, and a local planning committee provided greater acceptance of any decision;

·       That accessible, web-based local plans was a good idea;

·       To not agree with proposals for a 30-month statutory timescale for local plan production, which was unrealistic and require huge resource;

·       Neighbourhood plans should be retained, but needed to be aligned to the length of the local plan, and required new guidance on purpose and the updating process;

·       The of digital tools to assist development of neighbourhood plans made sense, but overriding of local plan design rules could complicate planning;

·       Assigned sites should be built out at a sensible rate after approval, perhaps including system where local authorities or government could ensure it occurred.

·       There was a concern around poor design particularly in larger developments and in respect of connectivity of communities;

·       Sustainability was important but encompassed a broad set of priorities;

·       The Council supported the use of design guides, with local input, and approved of a new body to support this, and that design be given strategic priority for Homes England;

·       The council broadly supported a fast track for beauty;

·       The council noted an area the size of Wiltshire was too varied to have a single priority for development;

·       The council supported consolidation of Community Infrastructure Levy and S.106 planning obligations, but that all new housing should contribute towards the resolving the strain on infrastructure, that rates should be set locally without causing viability issues, and the authorities should be able to borrow against the levy to support infrastructure delivery;

·       More information was required in relation to changes of use through permitted development rights;

·       The Council supported aims to secure at least the same amount of affordable housing, which also was needed in rural areas, and that it should be secured as in-kind payment toward the Infrastructure Levy or as a right to purchase at discounted rates for local authorities, mitigating for overpayment risk;

·       It was supported that there should be fewer restrictions on spending the Infrastructure Levy and there should be an affordable housing ‘ring-fence’.

 

The proposal was that these form the basis of a draft response, but would be adjusted in response to points raised by Members during the meeting and in writing, with the adjusted response approved following consultation with the Cabinet Member and the Leader of the Council.

 

After the presentation from Councillor Clewer the meeting adjourned from 1215-1220.

 

The Chairman then invited Group Leaders to comment on the report and presentations received.

 

Councillor Philip Whitehead, Leader of the Council, thanked Councillors Sturgis and Clewer for compiling the report and motion. It was stated that it was important that all Members be able to debate their views on the government consultation proposals, and the council response could incorporate the broad views of the council as much as possible. Parish Councils were encouraged to respond to the consultation.

 

Councillor Ian Thorn, Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group, welcomed the opportunity for the council to debate the item, and stated a summary of the council’s response would also be important as well as the responses to the specific questions to set the context of the consultation response, and this needed to be robust on the areas where the council disagreed with the proposals. Councillor Thorn felt the proposals presented in the White Paper presented a danger to democratic planning, and also requested that the final response should also include consultation with all political Group Leaders.

 

Councillor Ernie Clark, Leader of the Independent Group, noted there were two government consultations, one of which ended on 1 October 2020 and the second ended on 29 October 2020, and that the first was responded to by the Director of Economic Development and Planning but that the response was not publicly available. Councillor Clark also noted that the proposals could mean almost no affordable housing allocated in Wiltshire.

 

Councillor Ricky Rogers, Leader of the Labour Group, stated he would support the submission which covered valid points. It was noted that developers often complained about the time taken to make decisions, but that delays often resulted from actions of the developers, and that the present system worked generally well, and did not think it needed to be made much quicker and simpler for major developments.

 

At the beginning of debate, an amendment was moved by Councillor Ian Thorn, seconded by Councillor Sarah Gibson, to include Group Leaders to be consulted on the final response of the council. The amendment was accepted by the mover and seconder of the original motion, therefore any adjusted response would be consult with all Group Leaders before it was approved.

 

The council therefore continued to debate on the substantive motion.

 

Councillor Sarah Gibson then moved an amendment to insert the Executive Summary of the report in the agenda pack as part of the proposed response to the consultation, with some changes to its wording, as detailed below:

 

On 6 August 2020, the Government published the ‘Planning for the Future’

White Paper for consultation. The proposals in the White Paper have

important implications for Wiltshire Council, as one of the largest local

planning authorities in the country. There is a 12-week consultation period

ending on 29th October 2020.
 
Wiltshire Council recognises the need for reform to the current planning system, and the proposals in the White Paper are a welcome step forward in delivering this change. Any such changes must however also reflect the importance of maintaining, and where possible enhancing,? the importance of local democratic decision making in the planning system. They must also reflect this Council’s commitment to carbon neutrality by 2030.
 
Wiltshire Council supports the Government's aim of speeding up the delivery of appropriate and locally neededdevelopment? whilst enhancing design quality.
 
Whilst Wiltshire Council welcome many some of the proposals in the consultation, we have serious concerns about some others, particularly as they relate to any attempts to move away from CIL levels being set locally, or diminishing community and public engagement in the planning process, any reduction is the status of and respect for Neighbourhood Plans, and any failure to recognise the need to ensure that Enforcement Officers have the powers and resources they need to do their important jobs.There are other ?areas where further details will need to be forthcoming in order to fully evaluate their effectiveness. Details are set out in the report

 

Following discussion with the Chairman and the Cabinet Member it was agreed that all Members could submit detailed comments and proposed changes in writing including the proposed amendment, which would be considered by officers when preparing a response by the council and the summary of that response, which would be then approved in consultation with Group Leaders having regard to the comments received. Councillor Gibson accepted that approach to her proposed amendment, so a seconder was not sought.

 

The meeting therefore returned to debate on the substantive motion.

 

Points raised in debate included, but were not limited to, proposing strengthening the response regarding developers not building out on approved developments in a timely manner and suggesting other methods to incentivise this. Others welcomed that most of the draft responses reflected views raised by Members at recent briefings on the proposals, that Neighbourhood Plans needed to be defended in any response to government and that these were being undermined by current policy and were often very lengthy and cumbersome to prepare. The lack of a design code for local need was raised, and the impact of perceived current overdevelopment in some areas of Wiltshire.

 

Some comments stated the proposals from government were fundamentally flawed and noted the concerns raised by parish councils and others in objection and that objections needed to be made more strongly than proposed, with a focus on local decision making. The negative impact on growth zones on neighbourhood plans and democratic engagement was raised with some saying it should be objected to more strongly, and concerns were raised on the impacts on environmental sustainability and the need for more emphasis on climate change considerations.

 

Some Members disagreed that the response to Q9 on automatic outline permission for areas of substantial development was broadly yes and should be changed. Other comments included supporting recommending infrastructure levies rates to be set locally, and that any levy should be paid on the same basis as the current Community Infrastructure Levy, and that government needed to provide more detail on direct contributions for a local community. More detail on consent arrangements in Protected areas was also requested for the response, and clarity was sought on issues around energy efficiency. Some considered that the proposals from government were too weighted in favour of developers and noted that a focus on enforcement should not be to the detriment of other work and expressed concerns on in kind payments for affordable housing.

 

In response to debate, Councillor Clewer clarified the purpose of the motion to provide a basis for the precise wording of the final response to be prepared, after consultation with Group Leaders and the Cabinet Member after considering the points raised and submitted by Members, and welcomed the varied comments made during debate.

 

Councillor Sturgis noted the response to Government needed to be made by 29 October 2020 and the preparation of a response would take on board the comments that had been made and submitted, but that not every single response would be able to be included as there was not unanimity, and noted several comments related more to the Wiltshire Local Plan.

 

At the conclusion of debate,

 

Resolved:

 

To approve the draft response to the questions set out in the White Paper ‘Planning for the Future’ to provide guidance for the preparation of the Council’s response, to be prepared by the Director of Economic Development and Planning in consultation with the Leader of the Council, the Cabinet Member for Spatial Planning, Development Management and Investment, and Group Leaders.

 

A recorded vote was held with details as attached to these minutes.

 

For 56

Against 3

Abstain 20

A final response was prepared in response to the meeting and comments received from Members and approved following consultation with the Leader, the Cabinet Member and Group Leaders, and was provided in response to the government consultation as attached to these minutes.