Agenda item

The Chairman announced that in view of the complexity of agenda Item 6, the expected length of the debate thereon, and the likely effect of government proposals in agenda Item 7 on the local plan, agenda Item 7 would be dealt with first.

J Doe introduced the item to members. There were two consultation documents with different deadlines for responses; one in early October and one late October. Officers have prepared a draft response which is included in the report and the final decision for content lies with Councillor G Sutton, the portfolio holder. He referred to the white paper and paragraph 2.2 which related to the three pillars to the proposals; pillar 1 new local plans system and the development management system and how to deal with proposals as they arise; pillar 2, design codes to allow for beautiful and sustainable places; pillar 3, infrastructure planning and funding. A key aspect of pillar 1 is that the new local plans are to be shorter, map based and online based. The proposals in local plans are to be split into three areas: growth, renewal and protected areas. The big issue in these documents is the government’s methodology for calculating housing need in each area.

Councillor Timmis asked if the proposals to engage with the community be anything more than a tick box or will it allow for objection to plans? She also referred to green belt areas and that the government have made a commitment to protecting green belt areas, so she questioned why the council were going in the opposite direction and releasing areas to be developed.

Councillor Birnie said that the housing targets are to be adhered to and the numbers are determined nationally. Dacorum would find it impossible to meet their target unless they released green belt land.

J Doe said the planning proposal documents are overlapping with the Local Plan. There is a need for further housing delivery but the white paper leaves questions unanswered. There should be further guidance and legislation on the detail to the policy. At the moment, officers are not picking up a change from process to meet housing needs from greenbelt land. The government does expect the consultation process to be front loaded and have greater engagement at the Local Plan stage. Any sites in the Local Plan would benefit from outline planning permission and the principle of the development cannot be reopened.

A Robinson added that the government proposals do appear to shift public engagement back to the Local Plan stage instead of the decision making stage. There are two stages of consultation within the Local Plan, at the beginning during the call for sites and the second stage where the plan is prepared and published. There is a new area being proposed, allowing local authorities to create design codes prepared alongside the Local Plan.

Councillor Birnie questioned the future of the Development Management Committee in view of the reduction in public participation at the planning application stage.

J Doe said it would be a council decision where to place development management powers. At the moment, 90% of applications are delegated to officer level. We will need to see finer detail once the white paper proposals have been put into legislation.

Councillor Birnie commented that the government normally issue a green paper prior to a white paper to allow for public consultation on proposals but this had not happened this time.

Councillor Timmis asked why the council were not challenging the government on the number of homes needing green belt release.

J Doe said the response in the appendix to the report has some commentary on how the government has set the numbers which are mandatory. He said this part of the response could be strengthened.

Councillor Ransley said she was concerned by the community engagement proposals. She asked about the right of town and parish councils to object.

J Doe said it would depend on the local design guides and the onus would be on the council to prepare and develop robust codes so developers would be properly steered. It wouldn’t necessarily mean a blanket approval. It will be important for councils to control design as they wish to see it and get the codes right in the first place and this will be a new challenge.

Councillor Birnie asked for an example of a design code.

J Doe said they are a relatively new concept and design guides are heavily illustrated documents that set out requirements in a particular area.

A Robinson said the government is moving towards tighter and clearer standards for planning and it will make it more difficult for developers to move away from those requirements. Design codes are used across the country, they are quite prescriptive documents depicting building heights, density, sites used and planting requirements. There is lots of detail left to be filled in the consultation to determine what level of detailed control local authorities will be allowed.

Councillor Stevens commented that he felt the response to the government was too polite and it should make sure the strength of feeling is addressed. The general feeling across the country is that local authorities are not happy with the numbers of homes imposed on them irrespective of local land availability.

Councillor Barrett referred to the draft response to proposal six which suggested that the government want to explore whether some applications can be granted if not decided on in timely fashion. He asked why there was no response to that.

J Doe said that at the moment, most planning applications are not granted by default but applicants have the right of appeal against the council if there is a failure to make a decision in an agreed timescale. He was happy to strengthen this response if councillors wish.

Councillor McDowell said he would support the strongest possible response to these consultations. He questioned the growth areas and the low number of dwellings per hectare which could mean developers would be allowed to build more homes than stated in site allocations.

J Doe said his understanding was that proposals are not detailed. Design codes could deal with density. If developers wanted to increase the density, they would need to submit a new planning application.

Councillor Birnie said he had noticed that in the new method for calculating the housing requirement that affordability is a factor but does not mention how that affordability is weighted against other criteria.

A Robinson said affordability under the current system is a cap. Government have said in the white paper that other considerations go into finalising the housing figures. Some have been listed but it is not clear how constraints are weighted against need. The government policy ambition to build 300,000 homes is still mentioned in the consultations.

J Doe said Dacorum’s figure is 922 homes a year. What is missing from the documents is the constraints that the government haven’t defined. The calculation for affordability is under paragraph 29 in the second document and is the product of the median house prices and income.

Councillor Stevens said the affordability criteria is flawed and suggested that the ONS figures are planning in hindsight rather than forward planning.

Councillor G Sutton said he had been listening to the debate and appreciated the passion of members across parties. He said he would discuss the comments from members with officers and come up with another draft that will hopefully address the issues raised.

Councillor Birnie said he had distributed a response to the committee which was agreed by all members:

“Whilst the committee endorses the report made by Officers on the changes to planning and development proposed by central government, we consider that the Council’s response is too mild in tone and encourage closer alignment with the objections raised by the leader of Wokingham Council and that the response should include the following proposals:-

• Homes should be built where they are needed and not determined centrally by a one size fits all formula
• Development should be led by plans set by local authorities with input from their residents
• The percentage of affordable homes should be set locally.
• Developers should be forced to build the houses they have planning permission for in a timely fashion
• The ability of developers to avoid obligations such as the percentage of affordable homes in a development on the grounds of viability should be removed
• Developer contributions to build agreed infrastructure should be provided at an early stage of development
• Changes to the planning system should require primary legislation
• The need to prove a five-year land supply should be scrapped”

Councillor G Sutton said that he would consider this and come back to the committee with a workable and acceptable draft as soon as possible.