Agenda item

The Development Plan and Infrastructure Panel are asked to consider the attached report and make the proposed recommendation as set out in the report.

Mr Whitty introduced the report and drew the Panel’s attention to the main policy changes and objectives introduced through the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act (LURA) and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Mr Whitty explained that much of what was proposed in the LURA would require secondary legislation to be passed before enacted.

Mrs Stevens informed the Panel of the main changes and objectives introduced through the LURA and NPPF that would impact Development Management.

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows;

Regarding the introduction of the new Infrastructure Levy (IL) and whether Parish Councils would still be entitled to funding (similar to the CIL arrangement); Mr Whitty informed the Panel that until secondary legislation was enacted this unknown. The Council had stated that it should be kept in their representation to the original consultation.

Responding to concerns regarding the additions to S73B applications; Mrs Stevens acknowledged concerns but assured the Panel applications would continue to follow normal procedure for determination.

Responding to who the ‘prescribed bodies’ were; Mr Whitty informed the Panel he was unsure at this time as further definition was still required.

Regarding intervention by the Secretary of State in plan making; Mr Whitty explained further detail was needed to fully understand the objectives and reasons for how, why, and when the Secretary of State might intervene.

On the matter of development outside the AONB; Mr Whitty informed the Panel policy was designed to protect, not just the area within the AONB but also its setting. Therefore, when development was being proposed near to an AONB consideration must be given to the potential impact it may have on the setting of an AONB.

Mr Whitty told the Panel he was unsure how Community Land Auctions would work in practice.

Regarding changes to the housing requirement; Mr Whitty assured the Panel this was not a fundamental change but just provided further clarity.

On the matter of restricting GPDO rights, for example preventing commercial property from being converted into domestic; Mrs Stevens explained how it was very difficult to limit GPDO rights. There were very few areas in the country where this had been done, it required the application of an Article 4 direction and was only considered for very specific cases.

Mr Whitty clarified how the Gypsy and Traveller policy would be included within the Local Plan going forward.

Regarding the Duty to Co-operate; Mr Whitty acknowledged the comments made; and confirmed that whilst the duty had been removed from legislation it did remain in policy.

Regarding Street Vote Development Orders; Mrs Stevens confirmed that Street Vote Development Orders did not have to comply with planning policies, but they were required to consult with the Local Planning Authority. Regarding their use in rural areas, she confirmed there were definitions of what made a ‘street’ and limitations on what development could take place.

Responding to whether a design code could be developed to specify what was ‘beautiful’ for Chichester; Mr Whitty agreed this was an option, however, the word beautiful was very subjective.

On the matter of how a change in government might impact the introduction of the LURA; Mr Whitty explained LURA was already law, it would depend on priorities as to how swiftly secondary legislation followed.

Mr Whitty advised the provision of a 5YHLS was very beneficial as it meant the Council were able to resist inappropriate development, however, he explained that it was important the Council maintained an open mind when considering proposed developments which came forward outside the Local Plan.

Mr Whitty clarified how the housing trajectory was calculated, explaining when development was included, and completions removed.

Cllr Potter suggested the following words be added to the report recommendation ‘… in so far as is known’. Mr Whitty confirmed he was happy to include the suggestion.

Following a vote, the Panel agreed to support the amended report recommendation.

Resolved; That the Development Plan and Infrastructure Panel note the implications of the LURA and NPPF for both Development Management and Planning Policy functions of the council in so far as is known.