Agenda item

Local Plan Part 1 (LPP1) was adopted in February 2018. In accordance with statutory requirements, the Council undertook a review of the Plan within five years of its adoption to decide if an update was required. The full Council on 21 February 2023 resolved that LPP1 required updating and instructed officers to explore all options for carrying out this update.

This report addresses that resolution by exploring two broad options for updating the Local Plan.

Recommendation

The Executive recommends that:

Work commences on a comprehensive update of the Local Plan (option A), meeting the requirements of the existing development plan system but ensuring flexibility to migrate to the new system if implemented.

24.1   The Mayor invited the Leader to introduce the item. The Leader moved the recommendation from the Executive, which was duly seconded by Cllr Liz Townsend, Portfolio Holder for Planning, Regeneration and Economic Development who introduced the report and recommendations.

24.2   Cllr Townsend reminded Members that Local Plan Part 1 was now over five years old and in February, Council had considered the outcome of the statutory review undertaken by officers. Council had agreed that Local Plan Part 1 needed updating and that officers were to explore all options, including updating the plan immediately to make what was referred to as a broadly compliant plan as well as a more comprehensive update of Local Plan Part 1 and Local Plan Part 2 together to produce a single Local Plan whilst acknowledging that the existing Local Plan and Neighbourhood Plans remained the starting point for all decisions on planning applications while the update was brought forward.

24.3   The report in front of Council now had been considered by the Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 21 June 2023, and their recommendations had been broadly agreed by the Executive on 4 July, along with a recommendation to Council that a comprehensive update of the Local Plan, into a single plan be undertaken. It was critical that an up-to-date assessment of local housing need be carried out to present an appropriate and achievable housing strategy to meet the Government’s housing target while acknowledging the constraints across the borough, whether that be Green Belt, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty or other landscape designations.

24.4   Cllr Townsend advised that the report made it clear that it would be very difficult to convince an inspector that a partial update with an end date of 2032 would meet the requirements in the NPPF which stated that strategic policies should look ahead over a minimum 15-year period. That approach would be contrary to the advice of council officers and also the Planning Advisory Service and their consultants who considered a comprehensive update was likely to be the only feasible approach.

24.5   The Executive was also acutely aware of the limitations of local infrastructure, particularly water and sewage infrastructure, which had suffered from a lack of investment and oversight. The intention was to carry out a full water cycle study to ensure that there was understanding of the environmental and infrastructure capacity needed for fresh and wastewater. Recent experience in Cranleigh showed that there was a duty to residents and future generations to plan properly and use all levers available to make sure residents and the environment could thrive together.

24.6   Cllr Townsend stressed that whilst the proposed timescale for a comprehensive update outlined in option A of the report was ambitious it was realistic, and it was unlikely that it could be accelerated although any opportunities to shorten this process would be taken. The existing evidence base and knowledge in relation to Local Plan Parts 1 and 2 would be used where appropriate in producing a single plan for the borough and officers would be working closely with our towns and parishes to achieve this.

24.7   The aim was to submit the Local Plan for examination in December 2026. The work would be supported by an Executive Working Group, and the Overview and Scrutiny Committee would be kept updated on progress. There continued to be considerable uncertainty surrounding the adoption or even possible abandonment of the government's planning reforms and therefore a twin-track approach was outlined working initially within the current legislation but with the ability to switch to a more streamlined approach for local plans as has been set out in the government's reforms should that be announced later next year.

24.8   To demonstrate that the council was making every effort to meet government targets the housing delivery action plan would also be updated to identify the reasons for under delivery of housing within Waverly and explore the ways to reduce the risk of further under delivery over the forthcoming year, as well as setting up measures for improving the levels of housing delivery across the borough. Cllr Townsend reminded Members that the ultimate responsibility for delivering housing lay with developers although the weakening position for house building added even more pressure on the Council.

24.9   The extant local plan continued to provide an up-to-date statutory development plan for Waverly along with the Neighbourhood Plans and these would remain the starting point for decisions on planning applications while an update was brought forward. While the council was doing all it could to comply with government policy, it remained subject to the inflexibility of the government's top-down housing targets. When developers did not deliver, the balance tilted away from local decision-making resulting in over-turned decisions, and there was a threat of the balance tilting even further away from local decision-making as activity in the housing market weakened.

24.10  Cllr Peter Martin told Members that he and members of the Conservative opposition took a different view to that put forward by the Portfolio Holder and the Executive. At the Council meeting in February, Cllr Cockburn expressed very strongly the view that the council should undertake a swift update of the existing LPP1, holding to the 15-year period ending in 2032. Members had been  advised that this was not possible yet it had been done by other councils, notably Northamptonshire, Woking and Reigate and Banstead. If a swift review was not possible, Cllr Martin felt that Option B was preferable to Option A, being a partial alteration to the adopted LPP1 to address housing supply and related matters. Option A would take longer and was more complex and took the proposed period of the Plan to 2043, which he felt was too far out and would require more sites to be identified for building, causing considerable angst and difficulty that could be avoided with Option B. Option A would necessitate the comprehensive update of every Neighbourhood Plan to accommodate housing doe an extra 10 years, at considerable cost to the towns and parishes.

24.11  Cllr Martin was sceptical of the proposed timeline given the uncertainty around government planning reforms. Habitats constraints needed to be considered, which was of great significance to Farnham, and more SANG land would be needed without which brownfield sites in the town centre could not be developed. He believed that a more rapid and limited exercise was what was needed; he would be voting for Option B and urged Members to do the same.

24.12  Cllr Martin asked that there be a recorded vote at the end of the debate and this was supported by Cllr Follows.

24.13  Cllr Follows went on to speak in support of the recommended approach (Option A) and noted that the circumstances of the councils that Cllr Martin had cited as taking a different approach were all very different to Waverley’s. He agreed with Cllr Martin’s view that the planning system was flawed, but the proposed approach was optimal given the uncertainty around the government’s planning reforms and the need for the Local Plan to meet the requirements of the NPPF.

24.14  Cllrs Clark, Merryweather, Williams, Davidson, Beaman, Palmer and Weldon all spoke in support of the recommended approach and highlighted the opportunity to strengthen policies to support sustainability, addressing the climate emergency, and increasing affordable housing provision.

24.15  Cllrs Deanus, Hyman, Goodridge, and Austin spoke against the recommendation citing concerns regarding the inadequate infrastructure in rural areas such as Alfold that made them unsuitable for further development; the ambitious timescale for producing the new Local Plan and officer capacity; the constraints of the Habitats Regulations on development; and continued uncertainty for residents over allocation of new sites for housing development.

24.16  The Mayor invited Cllr Townsend to sum up and respond to comments raised by Members. Cllr Townsend acknowledged the very valid concerns of Members, but reiterated that the advice of officers and the Planning Advisory Service was that trying to do a quick or partial update would be the wrong approach and would be challenged by developers. Presently there could be no certainty about the government’s proposed planning reforms being implemented to enable the council to take a more streamlined approach to plan preparation, and that was why the twin-track approach was proposed, to provide maximum flexibility. In response to Cllr Deanus, Cllr Townsend emphasised that the LPP1 had never said that Alfold was a sustainable location for the volume of development that it had seen, and LPP1 had been successfully used to defend appeals in Farnham. LPP1 was not a ‘developers’ charter’, the NPPF was. Habitats Regulations would be followed in the plan development; the timeline was ambitious but resources had been budgeted and officers were confident that the key milestones could be met. Cllr Townsend responded to Cllr Davidson, Cllr Austin and Cllr Beaman, and urged Members to support the recommended approach.

24.17  The Mayor noted that Cllrs Martin and Follows had asked for a recorded vote on the recommendation, and confirmed that there was the necessary support for this.

24.18  A recorded vote was taken by roll call, and the outcome was 35 votes in favour of the recommendation, 9 votes against and no abstentions. The recommendation was therefore carried, and Council RESOLVED that work commences on a comprehensive update of the Local Plan (Option A), meeting the requirements of the existing development plan system but ensuring flexibility to migrate to the new system if implemented.

Votes for:

Cllrs Beaman, Busby, Clark, Crowe, Davidson, Duce, Fairclough, Follows, Gale, Higgins, Kiehl, Keen, Laughton, Long, MacLeod, McClean, Merryweather, Mirylees, Morrison, Munro, Murray, Palmer, K Reed, R Reed, Paul Rivers, Penny Rivers (The Mayor), Robini, Spence, Steijger, L Townsend, P Townsend, Ward, Weldon, White, Williams

Votes against:

Cllrs Atkins, Austin, Deanus, Goodridge, Hyman, Martin, Relleen, Staunton, Sullivan

Abstentions:

None