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

The Executive recommends to Full Council that:

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.

89.1     The Mayor invited the Leader to introduce the item. The Leader began by thanking Farnham Town Council and Farnham members for a constructive meeting the previous day to discuss the review of LPP1 and the need for an update. He recognised that this was an emotive topic and emphasised the need for evidence, the primacy of Government planning rules, and the need to consider the review and the update in the correct order. The Leader invited the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Economic Development, Cllr Liz Townsend, to present the details of the matter.

89.2     Cllr Townsend reminded Members that the council had a legal requirement to review LPP1 now that it was five years old. That review had been carried out by officers using the Planning Advisory Service (PAS) toolkit and their recommendation was that LPP1 needed to be updated. Independent legal advice had confirmed that a significant factor in this recommendation was the introduction, since LPP1 was adopted in 2018, of the standard method of calculating housing targets. This resulted in a new starting point of 743 dwellings per annum, a 26% increase on the target in LPP1 of 590 dwellings per annum. It would be hard to argue that this was not a significant difference, although there would be an opportunity to present a detailed assessment of the borough’s constraints and capacity to accommodate the higher number. The scope and timeline of the update had not been determined, and all options from a partial to full update would be investigated. However, the recommendation before Members now was to agree that LPP1 needed updating. Cllr Townsend went on to outline the potential risks of trying to set the scope of the update without evidence. The council had clear legal advice that the Development Plan would remain the starting point for decision-making, in accordance with section 38.6 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Furthermore, officers advised that the protection offered to Neighbourhood Plans under paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was not dependent on the borough having an updated housing figure, and this view was supported by independent legal advice.

89.3     Cllr Townsend recognised the effort that went into making Neighbourhood Plans, and the councils strongly supported the proposed changes to the NPPF to extend the protection for Neighbourhood Plans from two to five years. However, whilst the need for innovative and different solutions for the planning system were needed, the council had to work within the current system to produce an updated Local Plan that worked for the whole borough. Cllr Townsend concluded by thanking officers for their work in reviewing LPP1, whilst also completing work on Local Plan Part 2.

89.4     The Mayor next invited Cllr David Beaman to speak, as Cllr Beaman had given notice of an amendment that he wished to move. Cllr Beaman thanked the Leader and Cllr Townsend for meeting with Farnham Members and whilst this had been constructive, Farnham residents remained greatly concerned about the impact of an update to LPP1.

89.5     Cllr Beaman moved the following amendment to the recommendation set out in the agenda papers, which was seconded by Cllr Liz Townsend:

            “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 and instructs officers to explore all options including updating the plan immediately to make it broadly compliant with the latest NPPF (noting that the housing numbers produced by the new “Standard Method” are a starting point only) followed by a more detailed update of LPP1 and LPP2 together to produce a single Local Plan at a later date.

            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.”

            [deleted text struck through, additional text shown in italics]

89.6     The Mayor reminded Members that they were now debating the amendment, and invited Cllr Cockburn to open the debate. Cllr Cockburn thanked Cllr Beaman for his amendment but did not think that it added any certainty about the timelines or scope of the update, and so she would vote against. She noted that the report indicated that most policies in LPP1 remained broadly compliant and she urged prompt action and a report to Council in March setting out the scope and timelines of the update.

89.7     Cllrs Dixon, Cosser, Liz Townsend, Hyman, Wilson, Gale, Mirylees, Follows, MacLeod, Foryszewski, Mulliner, and Merryweather spoke on the amendment. In summing up, Cllr Beaman emphasised the need for an evidence-based update, but also the need for it to carried out quickly.

89.8     The Mayor called a vote on the amendment, which was carried by 32 votes for, 14 votes against, and 1 abstention.

89.9     The Mayor reminded Members that they would now be debating the recommendation as amended, and invited Cllr Townsend to respond to an earlier question regarding the revised housing target. Cllr Townsend advised that the change in housing target did not in itself require the plan to be updated, but if the council did not provide evidence – through the plan-making process – of constraints on the capacity of the borough to deliver the higher housing target, the council would be challenged by developers and Inspectors. So, there was a balance of risks to be considered.

89.10   The Mayor invited the Council’s Planning Policy Manager, Andrew Longley, to comment. Mr Longley confirmed that it would be difficult, although not impossible, to ignore the significant increase in housing numbers but legal opinion was that the balance of risks favoured an early update and being seen to take a proactive approach was likely to be looked upon favourably by planning inspectors. Mr Longley also emphasised that the protections for Neighbourhood Plans in paragraph 14 of the draft revised NPPF would not be affected by the local plan not being up to date.

89.11   Cllr Hyman spoke to propose an amendment. He noted that in Annexe 2 of the report there was confirmation that the council needed to produce a Wealden Heaths SPA Strategy with neighbouring authorities that would enable an assessment of the in combination impacts of development, as required by Habitats Regulations. He further noted that an update to the local plan would require a compliant appropriate assessment from the start of the process to evaluate the amount of residential development that could be lawfully granted, which the council did not have. In his view, the council could avoid further development, and the need to update LPP1, using the legal constraints on development that already existed under the Habitats Regulations, if applied correctly.

89.12   Cllr Hyman circulated his amendment, which was seconded by Cllr Dixon.

            “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 does not require updating, and that moreover, the Council cannot reasonably expect to be able to commence an Update because it is subject to overriding Habitats constraints, whereby pending long-awaited evidence from Natural England of the extent to which their mitigation strategies are effective, it is not possible to conduct Appropriate assessments of the in-combination impacts of housing developments within the surveyed visitor catchment areas of the Thames Basin and Wealden Heaths SPAs, which cover the borough.”

            [text in italics replaces text in amended recommendation in 89.5, above]

89.13   The Leader called a Point of Order and asked if the amendment was lawful as it effectively nullified the substantive motion. The Planning Policy Manager confirmed that the amendment noted that the review had been carried out, which was the legal requirement, and then came to an alternative conclusion. The Monitoring Officer confirmed that the amendment appeared to be lawful in the context of the constitution.

89.14   Cllrs Dixon, Follows, Cockburn, Wilson, Goodridge, Heagin, Merryweather, Mulliner, D’Arcy, and Beaman spoke to the amendment. Whilst some councillors felt that there might be some merit in looking at the approach of Horsham District Council, councillors also noted that Cllr Hyman’s views on the Habitats Regulations had been tested previously with Counsel advice, and at numerous planning appeals and inquiries, and there had been no support for it. Councillors further noted that such a significant change in the council’s position would in itself require an update of LPP1.

89.15   The Mayor invited Cllr Hyman to sum up his position before putting the amendment to the vote. The amendment was lost, with 1 vote for, 39 votes against, and 5 abstentions.

89.16   Returning to the substantive motion, Cllr Mulliner proposed an amendment which emphasised the need to explore thoroughly the constraints of the Habitats Regulations, and which was seconded by Cllr D’Arcy:

            “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 and instructs officers to explore all options including updating the plan immediately to make it broadly compliant with the latest NPPF (noting that the housing numbers produced by the new “Standard Method” are a starting point only) and taking particular account of any Habitat Regulations constraints on an increase in housing numbers, followed by a more detailed update of LPP1 and LPP2 together to produce a single Local Plan at a later date.

However, the existing 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.”

            [additional text shown in italics]

89.17   Cllrs Follows, Cockburn, Reed, Cosser, Baker, Foryszewski and D’Arcy spoke to the amendment, which was generally felt to not materially change the substantive motion, as the impact of the Habitats Regulations would be considered as part of the update anyway.

89.18   The Mayor put the amendment to the vote, which was carried with 25 votes for, 11 votes against, and 10 abstentions.

89.19   The Mayor invited speakers on the new substantive recommendation. Cllr Cockburn reiterated her view that the update needed to happen quickly and should be minimal; that adoption of LPP2 would help with delivery of housing numbers, and any delay would send Neighbourhood Plans back to the drawing board. Cllr Follows and Cllr Townsend reminded Members that the decision before them was not on the scope of the update, and that there could be no commitment to a ‘minimal’ update without going through the plan-making process. They too wanted the scoping report to come forward as soon as possible, but due process had to be followed, and there was no quick fix to the problem. The Leader commended the recommendation, as amended, to Council.

89.20   The Mayor put the recommendation to the vote, which was carried with 38 votes for, 6 votes against, and 2 abstentions. It was therefore

RESOLVED that,

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 and instructs officers to explore all options including updating the plan immediately to make it broadly compliant with the latest NPPF (noting that the housing numbers produced by the new “Standard Method” are a starting point only) and taking particular account of any Habitat Regulations constraints on an increase in housing numbers, followed by a more detailed update of LPP1 and LPP2 together to produce a single Local Plan at a later date.

However, the existing 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.