Agenda item

Local Plan Part 1 (LPP1) was adopted in February 2018.   There is a statutory requirement to review LPP1 within five years from its adoption (i.e., by the end of February 2023) to decide if an update to the Plan is required.

 

This report presents the findings of the review of LPP1 and concludes that the plan requires updating. The recommendations seek endorsement of this conclusion so that work can proceed on identifying the scope of an updated plan and the timetable for its preparation, including the approach to engaging local communities. These matters are not for determination now and will be the subject of a further report to allow the Council to consider in detail how it wishes to update its strategic policies.

 

Recommendation

 

That the Executive recommends to Full Council that:

 

1.    Having undertaken a review of LPP1 in accordance with regulation 10A of The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 (as amended),the Council resolves that LPP1 requires updatingto a greater or lesser extent. However, the Local Plan as a whole continues to provide an up-to-date statutory development plan for Waverley, which must remain the starting point for decisions on planning applications while an update is brought forward.

 

And, the Executive agrees that:

 

2.    A further report on the detailed scope of the update and the timetable for its preparation is prepared for consideration by Overview & Scrutiny to allow comments and recommendations to be made prior to the presentation to Executive and Full Council. This should include the implications of a new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the emerging Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill once fully understood.

 

3.    Budgetary provision is made to enable technical work on an updated evidence base to commence during 2023/24.

 

4.    The budget should be reviewed in the light of the agreed scope of the update and work programme, with clear alignment and monitoring arrangements.

 

5.    The governance journey for the update process should be clarified, to include the role of Overview and Scrutiny.

The Executive RESOLVED to recommend to Full Council that:

 

1.         Having undertaken a review of LPP1 in accordance with regulation 10A of The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 (as amended),the Council resolves that LPP1 requires updatingto a greater or lesser extent. However, the Local Plan as a whole continues to provide an up-to-date statutory development plan for Waverley, which must remain the starting point for decisions on planning applications while an update is brought forward.

 

The Executive further RESOLVED that:

 

2.         A further report on the detailed scope of the update and the timetable for its preparation is prepared for consideration by Overview & Scrutiny to allow comments and recommendations to be made prior to the presentation to Executive and Full Council. This should include the implications of a new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the emerging Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill once fully understood.

 

3.         Budgetary provision is made to enable technical work on an updated evidence base to commence during 2023/24.

 

4.         The budget should be reviewed in the light of the agreed scope of the update and work programme, with clear alignment and monitoring arrangements.

 

5.         The governance journey for the update process should be clarified, to include the role of Overview and Scrutiny.

 

Reason: There is a statutory requirement to review Local Plan Part 1 to decide if an update is required.

 

[Resolution 1 is recommended to Council for decision. The additional resolutions reflect recommendations from O&S – Services Committee.]

The Portfolio Holder for Planning and Economic Development, Cllr Liz Townsend, advised that as there were a number of questions and a statement from Members, she would move straight to these in order to avoid too much repetition.

 

Cllr Carole Cockburn had a number of questions, to which the Portfolio Holder responded in turn.

 

Cllr Cockburn: “Planning Policy Guidance suggests that the LPA should complete a review of a five-year-old plan and decide either that its policies do not need updating and publish the reasons for this decision or that one or more policies do need updating. 

 

It is a matter of judgment for the LPA. Where in regulation 10A of the Town and Country Planning Regulations 2012 does it say that a full review of LPP1 must result in a major update?”

 

Cllr Townsend responded: “As set out in paras 4.1 and 4.2, there is a statutory duty (not just a suggestion) to review a Local Plan no later than 5 years from the adoption date. This is to ensure that the policies remain relevant and effectively address the needs of the local community. The NPPF and NPPG are clear that most plans are likely to require updating in whole or part at least every 5 years when their applicable local housing need figure has changed significantly.

 

Officers have undertaken the review of LPP1 as set out in Section 5 of the report, using the toolkit provided by PAS (Planning Advisory Service) and looking at conformity with the NPPF and changes in local housing need, as well has housing delivery, the conclusion is that LPP1 needs updating, it would be misleading to suggest otherwise, and also given that the evidence base for the plan was largely assembled between 2013 and 2016. In addition, the Government’s calculation of Local Housing Need is significantly higher than the housing requirement in LPP1. However as is clearly laid out in point 5.10 of the report it would be wrong to assume at this stage that the LPP1 annual housing requirement is incorrect or that a similar number would be unlikely to form the basis of an updated plan.

 

I must stress again that the extent of the update has not been decided and will be based on robust evidence that will stand up to scrutiny and examination.”

 

Cllr Cockburn: “The portfolio-holder very rudely shouted me down at the O&S meeting for stating that the papers before us clearly indicated that the core strategy in LPP1 should be torn up, sending all neighbourhood plans back to the drawing board. Please could she explain how modifying aspects of the core strategy, such as key policies SP2 and ALH1, does not effectively change the essence of that strategy and how can that not render all the documents, created to deliver the original strategy, immediately out of date?”

 

Cllr Townsend responded: “LPP1 is not being torn up and neighbourhood plans are not being sent back to the drawing board.  As explained earlier, the ongoing review process of local plans is a legal requirement and whether a plan needs updating on not requires the council to provide a robust argument that will stand up to challenge.  As I have said on numerous occasions the extent of the update will be evidence based and the scope and the timeline is yet to be decided and will presented to O&S, Executive and full Council.  I would also like to highlight that should we not update the plan and ignore changes in planning policy as well as the standard method for calculating housing need, this decision will also come under extensive examination by developers and no doubt repeated challenges by them.  If only one appeal was to be successful on the grounds of our decision NOT to update, the floodgates would be opened for speculative development across the borough.

 

Whilst evidence is being gathered for an update, the statutory development plan, including LPP1, LPP2 and Neighbourhood Plans will remain the starting point for planning decisions.  As highlighted in the report at 1.5 the local plan and neighbourhood plans are considered to provide an up-to-date development plan for the purpose of decision making while an updated plan is brought forward. Based on the evidence should SP2 and ALH1 require updating this would likely impact on Neighbourhood Plans, however in a plan-led system development plans have to be kept up to date and this would not be a defendable reason in itself not to update LPP1.”

 

Cllr Cockburn: “Why was the option of a light-touch review at this point, in the light of the imminent adoption of the long-awaited LPP2, the recent adoption of several SPDs, the number of outstanding planning permissions and our improving housing delivery, not even mentioned in the papers that went to O&S?

 

The portfolio-holder must have agreed that all the supporting documents should be published. Why did she effectively decide to tell residents and developers alike that major updates will be necessary, when members are being told that the decision has yet to be made?”

 

Cllr Townsend responded: “The update to the local plan must be evidence led. This council has tried previously to avoid the local plan evidence led process. In 2013 the previous administration tried unsuccessfully and despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary to progress with a plan based on housing numbers which they were repeatedly advised would not be accepted by the Examiner. What happened then was the plan was immediately thrown out and it would not be for another 5 years that this borough would have a local plan in place, leaving the entire borough exposed to speculative development.  The final housing number that was allocated in LPP1 of 590 dwellings per annum was not challenged and no evidence was provided to justify a lower number.  It was then promised that LPP1 would be quickly followed by LPP2 which would help to strengthen existing policies and would also protect us with a 5 Year Housing Supply.  What happened was yet again an error of judgement by the previous administration when LPP2 was thrown away the day before it was due to be adopted because they couldn’t sort out internal arguments over allocated sites in Haslemere.  Leaving this borough yet again exposed to speculative development and to the legacy of that decision making has contributed to the unenviable place we now find ourselves in.

 

This administration does not intend to repeat the mistakes of the past.  We may not like the planning system and we may want and hope to be able to make fundamental changes to this system in the future.  However, what is clear is that trying to ignore the evidence from this borough and the clear process that a plan led system should follow, will open and has opened this borough and our residents to continued speculative development. 

 

The review process undertaken by officers follows national planning practice guidance and utilises the recommended PAS toolkit. It suggests that on first inspection some policies in LPP1 are likely to need some form of updating. Using the terminology of the PAS toolkit, this was described in the O&S report as likely to involve a ‘full’ rather than ‘partial’ update. However, it is clear that there are several points of scale between these two points and currently the scope and timeline of the update is yet to be developed and agreed. I can only begin to imagine the scale of displeasure of the O&S committee if the background information was not provided to the committee and ultimately to the residents we serve for scrutiny. That is the correct and proper process rather than the suppression of what should be public documents.  Commitment to transparency is something that this administration values and it would be highly irresponsible to believe that developers who have highly experienced and retained legal teams at their fingertips are not aware and scrutinising decisions being made by Waverley along with other borough and district councils.

 

The review and update of LPP1 should not be interpreted as implying that the current plan is no longer the starting point for planning decisions.  This is not what officers said and the report has quite rightly been revised to avoid any confusion and to emphasise that the scope of the update and the timetable for its preparation are matters for future scrutiny by the O&S committee before consideration by Executive and Full Council.  We will also have a clearer understanding of the implications and timeline of the proposed planning reforms.”

 

Cllr Cockburn: “The proposed wording in the NPPF consultation suggests that when the housing requirement in adopted strategic policies becomes more than five years old, LPAs should identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites, sufficient to provide a minimum of five years' worth of housing. What is the role of LPP2 in the Development Plan, if it is not to provide the available and deliverable sites, to enable the strategy in LPP1 to be delivered?”

 

Cllr Townsend responded: “A key role for LPP2 is to bring forward the required additional sites for housing and its adoption should assist the Council in achieving a 5YHLS.  However, the overall strategic housing requirement is set out in LPP1, which is 5 years old this month. There is no option but to review LPP1 and the scope and timeline of the update will be scrutinised by O&S before consideration and agreement by Executive and Full Council. I would also draw your attention to point 4.1 and 4.2 in the report.”

 

Cllr Cockburn: “Many of us have fought for years to get decision-making to be genuinely plan-led. The government has eventually listened and proposed imminent changes to the NPPF that could be beneficial to large parts of the borough. Why, therefore, is the executive ignoring the needs of vast numbers of our residents, not defending its own Development Plan by seeking a swift and minimal update and, instead, preparing to spend over £800,000 of taxpayers' money on a lengthy update?”

 

Cllr Townsend responded: “I also fought for years, whilst the then administration of this council pursued an unreasonable and unevidenced housing number leading to an abandoned core strategy which then threw the borough into the laps of the developers and speculative development, particularly I should add in Farnham and Cranleigh and later in Alfold.

 

We will be making representations on the Government’s planning reforms to maintain that Waverley should benefit from any positive changes proposed. However, delaying action has never worked well for this borough, and we must work with the planning system as it currently stands.

The update of the local plan requires a robust evidence base. You cannot argue that a minimal update is required without the evidence, you would simply expose this council to one legal challenge after another. We are more than aware of the changes to planning policy being proposed by the government and that is exactly why we are working to ensure that we have started gathering the evidence required to defend or update our policies and we can hit the ground running once the updates to the NPPF and the Levelling up and Regeneration Bill are published. With the budget secured to cover all eventualities we will have the ability and agility to move quickly based on what will provide the greatest advantages to the whole of the borough. We will continue to take legal advice on this matter and to share that with members when available.

With regard to costs, the report is very clear that the indicative costs relate to a comprehensive update of evidence for the plan only if that is required. It is only prudent to ensure that we are in a position to be able to act swiftly by securing an adequate budget (at this time of budget setting) in the best interests of the borough.  The actual costs will reflect the agreed scope of the plan once that has been agreed, which will be after the budget has been set, and we will look for cost savings within whatever scope is then decided and wherever possible.”

Cllr Cockburn asked the Leader if a KC’s opinion could be obtained on whether or not Waverley’s extant LPP1 would carry weight during the time when an update was being carried out, as this was a major concern for many residents. The Leader advised that he and the Deputy Leader had asked for the same legal advice from Wayne Beglan, who had advised the Council throughout the development of the Local Plan. Further assurance would be sought on this matter but Officers had been taking legal advice throughout the review process and this had been shared with Members, and it was clearly stated in the report that the development plan and neighbourhood plans would remain the starting point for decision-making whilst any update was taking place.

 

It was noted that Wayne Beglan was not a KC, and the Leader confirmed that an appropriately qualified opinion would be sought.

 

The Leader invited Cllr David Beaman, Ward Councillor for Farnham Castle Ward and Joint Leader, Farnham Town Council, to read his statement:

  

“Thank you for giving me an opportunity to address this meeting of the Executive Committee regarding the recommendations of the Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee regarding the proposed review (or rather update) of LPP1. I welcome all the proposed recommendations which I hope will be accepted unchanged to be recommended for approval by Full Council on 21^st February. 

Whilst it is accepted without question that there is a statutory obligation to undertake an update the scale of the update still remains undetermined.  

 

For most of Waverley a full update might have few material consequences. In Farnham, however, there are several outstanding appeals for residential developments on locations not allocated in Farnham's Neighbourhood Plan and with developers known to be looking at other unallocated sites for residential developments this update could not come at a worse time for Farnham.  

 

At a Full Council meeting of Farnham Town Council held on Thursday 26th January the following motion was passed unanimously without any votes against or abstentions : - 

 

“Farnham Town Council is very concerned that Waverley Borough Council is considering a comprehensive update of LPP1 since this will undermine Farnham’s Neighbourhood Plan at a critical time with a number of planning applications for residential developments in locations not allocated for development subject to appeal having been refused by Waverley Borough Council and applications for residential developments on other unallocated sites are thought to being considered. 

Farnham Town Council urges Waverley Borough Council to only undertake the minor update required to its existing LPP1 as quickly as possible to help protect Farnham from unwanted and unsustainable speculative development” 

 

In particular any update needs to seriously question the assessed housing need of 744 homes as calculated under the standard method which is significantly (26%) higher than the housing need of 590 homes, which itself includes 83 homes to meet Woking’s unmet housing need, in LPP1. Whilst I understand that Waverley is currently managing to exceed the current target of 590 homes mainly through small developments on windfall sites I am not aware that it has ever managed to achieve 744 homes. 

If WBC now accepts adopting the higher housing need calculation of 744 homes in even a partial update of the Plan this will inevitably be seized on by developers to argue the case for further speculative development and that the existing LPP1 target of 590 homes is "out of date". As I understand the situation there is no mandatory requirement on Waverley to use the standard method to calculate housing need and why should it do so given that 744 homes is so much more difficult to actually achieve than the present LPP1 target of 590 homes? 

 

What applies to Farnham would, of course, also apply to the rest of the Borough and potentially all the other made Neighbourhood Plans which is likely to make them not worth the paper they are written on.  

  

I do, however, recognise that I am a Waverley Borough Councillor and need to act in the overall interests of the Borough and not just in the interests of Farnham where I represent Farnham Castle ward.  

   

There is currently so much uncertainty surrounding proposed changes to national planning legislation and guidelines that, in my personal opinion, it would seem more prudent to go for a partial updating of LPP1 however imperfect this might be. At least Waverley has a made Local Plan (which is more than can be said for many local authorities) and it seems foolish and short sighted to potentially just throw away this position.  

  

There is an indicative cost of £850,000 to undertake a full update. Why make a commitment to spend so much money when there is so much uncertainty over developing national planning legislation and guidelines especially against a background of a General Election within the next 2 years that, depending on its result, might result in still further changes to national planning legislation and guidelines.  

  

At a time when Waverley Borough Council is facing a difficult financial position to allocate £850,000 to a lengthy data gathering exercise to undertake a review of LPP1 against a background of still undecided changes to national planning legislation and guidelines is not, in my opinion, in the overall best interests of Waverley as a whole.  

  

If there are any spare financial resources available then it would be far better for these to be spent on ensuring that Waverley is able to meet the time targets for dealing with minor planning applications which all members are aware WBC have recently been advised by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) that it is failing to achieve.  

   

Thank you for the time you have kindly provided to me to address the Executive Committee.”

 

The Leader thanked Cllr Beaman for his statement, and Farnham Town Council for their motion on this matter, but reiterated that the Council could not agree the scope of the update without understanding fully the extent of update required. The Leader advised that he had offered to attend a meeting at Farnham Town Council to address the council’s questions in a suitable forum.

 

Cllr Jerry Hyman had registered to speak on this item, and argued that an extensive update may not be required due to the protections afforded by legal constraints on development relating to Habitats Regulations, which he did not feel had been properly considered and addressed in the review of Local Plan Part 1. The Leader reminded Cllr Hyman that Waverley had obtained multiple legal opinions that had confirmed that Waverley’s approach to the Habitats Regulations was legally compliant.

 

Cllr Merryweather expressed concern that not following due process in reviewing and updating LPP1 could leave the Council open to challenge by developers. In response to Cllr Beaman’s reference to the budget provision of £850k, Cllr Merryweather advised that only £150k of this was scheduled in 2023/24.

 

In summing up, Cllr Townsend reminded Members that the scope of the update was still to be agreed, and it would be presumptive to constrain this in advance of having a full understanding of the requirements.

 

The Executive RESOLVED to recommend to Full Council that:

 

1.         Having undertaken a review of LPP1 in accordance with regulation 10A of The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 (as amended),the Council resolves that LPP1 requires updating to a greater or lesser extent. However, the Local Plan as a whole continues to provide an up-to-date statutory development plan for Waverley, which must remain the starting point for decisions on planning applications while an update is brought forward.

 

The Executive further RESOLVED that:

 

2.         A further report on the detailed scope of the update and the timetable for its preparation is prepared for consideration by Overview & Scrutiny to allow comments and recommendations to be made prior to the presentation to Executive and Full Council. This should include the implications of a new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the emerging Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill once fully understood.

 

3.         Budgetary provision is made to enable technical work on an updated evidence base to commence during 2023/24.

 

4.         The budget should be reviewed in the light of the agreed scope of the update and work programme, with clear alignment and monitoring arrangements.

 

5.         The governance journey for the update process should be clarified, to include the role of Overview and Scrutiny.

 

Reason: There is a statutory requirement to review Local Plan Part 1 to decide if an update is required.