Agenda item

The Cabinet is requested to consider the agenda report and the update sheet and the four appendices to the report in the agenda supplement* and to make the following recommendation to the Council:

 

(1)  That the Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach document (attached as appendix 2) and the schedule of proposed changes to the policies map (attached as appendix 3) be approved for an eight-week consultation from 13 December 2018 to 7 February 2019.

 

(2)  That the Director for Planning and the Environment be authorised, following consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning Services, to make minor amendments to the consultation documents prior to their publication.

 

*[Note The four appendices in the agenda supplement are not being circulated to Chichester District Council members as they have already received them in the agenda papers for the Development Plan and Infrastructure Panel meeting on Thursday 1 November 2018, which they should bring with them please both to this special meeting of the Cabinet and the ensuing Council meeting on Tuesday 20 November 2018]

RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL

 

(1)  That the Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach document (attached as appendix 2), as amended in the sixth agenda supplement, and the schedule of proposed changes to the policies map (attached as appendix 3) be approved for an eight-week consultation from 13 December 2018 to 7 February 2019.

 

(2)  That the Director for Planning and the Environment be authorised, following consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning Services, to make minor amendments to the consultation documents prior to their publication.

 

The Cabinet received and considered the agenda report and its four appendices in the main agenda supplement and the updates detailed in the sixth agenda supplement.

 

This item was presented by Mrs S Taylor (Cabinet Member for Planning Services).

 

In attendance for this matter were Mr A Frost (Director of Planning and Environment), Mr M Allgrove (Planning Policy Manager) and the following members of the CDC Planning Policy team: Ms H Chivers, Mrs V Dobson, Mrs K Dower, Mrs T Flitcroft, Mr T Guymer and Mrs V Owen.

 

Mrs Taylor presented the report as follows. CDC currently had an adopted Local Plan but was committed to reviewing it by July 2020 to ensure that the development needs of the Local Plan area were addressed in accordance with national planning policy. The Local Plan Review would be for 2020 to 2035 and would cover the Chichester District area outside the South Downs National Park (SDNP). Work on the evidence base to inform the Local Plan Review had been ongoing for the past two years. Appendix 4 to the report set out the evidence base already published together with future dates of publication. The Local Plan area’s housing need was based on the government’s current proposed methodology and was capped at an increase of 40% of the figure in the existing Chichester Local Plan (CLP), resulting in a housing need figure of 12,350 new dwellings over the plan period ie 609 dwellings plus 41 dwellings per annum to accommodate the unmet housing need of the SDNP within the CLP area, namely a total of 650 dwellings per annum. The Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach (LPRPA) had two parts. Part one set out some of the key planning issues and challenges together with the preferred spatial strategies to meet the needs of the District. It proposed inter alia specific sites for development. A majority of the planned growth would be in the east-west corridor including Chichester city, with more moderate development for the Manhood Peninsular and in the north of the District. In addition, provision for new employment floor-space was proposed equating to over 230,000 m² for the plan period. Part two of the LPRPA comprised development management policies, which provided greater detail with respect to, for example, design, heritage, housing mix/tenure and landscape considerations. If approved by the Cabinet and the Council, the LPRPA would be published for consultation for a period of eight weeks from 13 December 2018 to 7 February 2019. The Revised Local Development Scheme (the next agenda item at this special meeting) set out the timetable for taking the LPRPA through to adoption, which self-evidently was very tight. Failure to proceed to consultation on the LPRPA would be likely to result in the extant CLP becoming out-of-date with its serious consequences. The proposed consultation would afford an opportunity for the community to engage in a positive and constructive way to ensure that the development that took place was planned, and not speculative and unplanned with a lack of control over infrastructure, design and location, as was experienced prior to the adoption of the current CLP. The need for and commitment to new housing was recognised by all of the main political parties ie 300,000 new dwellings per annum. The best way to ensure that the unique qualities of this very beautiful part of the country were preserved was for CDC to ensure that it had an up-to-date Local Plan. She commended the two recommendations in section 3.1 of the report to the Cabinet’s approval.

 

Mr Allgrove commented on a number of matters:

 

(a)  The very extensive process and considerable amount of hard work necessitated in a review of the Local Plan, which included the issues and options consultation, meetings of CDC’s Development Plan and Infrastructure Panel, member briefings and discussions with parish councils and developers.

(b)  The work in progress on the transport study, the sustainability appraisal, the habitat regulations assessment, the strategic flood risk assessment and the landscape study.

 

(c)  The completion of the evidence base and consultations as expeditiously as possible was necessary in order to submit the Local Plan Review for examination in July 2019 and adoption in July 2020.

 

(d)  The sections in the sixth agenda supplement set out logically the sequential order of the various updates, which would be incorporated into the LPRPA consultation version if approved by the Cabinet and the Council – due to members having the Development Plan and Infrastructure Panel agenda papers, it should be noted that the page references in the sixth supplement should have 44 subtracted from them in order to equate to the same pages of the LPRPA document in appendix 2 in the papers published for the public.   

 

In its discussion the Cabinet acknowledged the amount of hard work which had already been undertaken, the work yet to be done in an acutely time-compressed period and the consensus was that the LPRPA document should now be subjected to consultation and the Council be recommended to approve that course of action.

 

Mr Allgrove and Mr Frost responded (as shown in italics) to the Cabinet’s questions and comments on points of detail as follows:

 

·       Mr P Wilding (Cabinet Member for Corporate Services and a CDC co-ward member for Plaistow) expressed concern about the additional 125 houses allocated to Loxwood: the allocation was based on the limited availability of land and sites being offered in the north of the CLP area and having regard to Loxwood being identified as a service village.

 

·       Mrs E Lintill (Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Community Services) asked about the relationship between the LPRPA and the existing and emerging neighbourhood development plans (NDP): in the extant CLP and the LPRPA the intention was to facilitate NDP wherever possible to enable local decisions about land/housing allocations to be made. Within the Local Plan Review process, parish councils now needed to undertake reviews of their NDP or prepare them. It was recognised that this was a time-consuming process and CDC would assist parishes as much as possible. It was important to realise the implications for an adopted Local Plan Review if the NDP were not up-to-date: this would result in the absence of a five-year housing land supply and the risk of planning by appeal. Accordingly it was incumbent on parish councils to make expeditious progress with the NDP if they wished to influence the identification of land for housing in their areas. It was open to parishes to comment on proposed housing allocations during the anticipated forthcoming consultation and at the eventual examination of the submission draft Local Plan.         

 

With Mr Dignum’s permission, three CDC non-Cabinet members addressed the meeting.

 

 

 

 

 

(1) Mr S Oakley (Tangmere)

 

Mr Oakley had previously submitted 12 questions for this special meeting, from which he selected the following seven questions with the corresponding answers being given by either Mr Dignum or Mrs Taylor:  

 

Question

 

‘What is your view on the impact of the actual costs of the proposed package of LPR mitigation measures for the A27 by-pass (using Highways England’s methodologies) on the overall viability of the plan? There is no way new development, CIL and local authority contributions will be able to cover these costs, so is there a risk that this plan could be found unsound on viability grounds?’

 

Response by Mr Dignum

 

‘The actual costs of the proposed measures for the A27 Chichester Bypass are still being refined, and will continue to be refined as the scheme proceeds through the detailed design process.  It is agreed that developer, CIL and local authority contributions are unlikely to be sufficient to cover the entire cost of the scheme and that other funding sources may be required.  If no potential additional funding sources can be identified then there is a risk that the plan as a whole could be considered unviable and therefore unsound unless alternative mitigation can be identified.  It would be extremely difficult or impossible to bid for funds from pots such as the Housing Infrastructure Fund if we do not have a plan in place setting out the proposed development and the infrastructure needed to support it.  This position is not uncommon in other local authorities across the country.’

 

Question

 

‘There is also the issue of the longevity of effect of these mitigation measures. The transport study appears to accept that the A27 junctions with these works will require further works within a few years of the plan’s end. We are in a five-year plan review cycle and funding for all the proposed works will not have accumulated or been obtained until the late 2020s at best. Is there a risk that the further works required by the 2025 review will supersede these proposals so we get into a cycle that means either nothing gets delivered or if something is done it gets redone only a few years later?’

 

Response by Mr Dignum

 

‘Highways England (HE) has not provided certainty as to when there is a necessity to deliver highways improvements in relation to the phasing of development within the adopted Local Plan.  Officers are continuing to work with HE to establish the need for mitigation measures in relation to the phasing of development in the emerging Local Plan Review as well as the adopted Local Plan.  Unfortunately in the absence of a major scheme to deal with the existing capacity issues, we are faced with the prospect of incremental improvements that may need to be replaced or revised within short timescales.  Should Highways England not provide any assistance on phasing of improvements in relation to the provision of development, and ideally this should be set out on the next iteration of the plan and the Infrastructure Delivery Plan, then the Council will be entirely reliant on Highways England to decide the timing of the implementation of the improvements through the Development Management process.’

 

Question

 

‘With regards sustainable transport infrastructure, there are many ambitious references to seeking additional provision, but little in the way of “shall” be provided in the policy wording. Would the Cabinet agree that wording on this aspect of infrastructure should be strengthened throughout?’

 

Response by Mrs Taylor and Mr Allgrove

 

‘This is a detailed point and one that should be picked up when revisions to the plan are being considered following public consultation.  Additional provision is often the responsibility of West Sussex County Council as Highway Authority and therefore strengthened wording may not achieve the provision but could prevent development from occurring, with obvious negative implications regarding five-year housing land supply etc.’

 

Mr Allgrove added that there was not a limited ambition in the LPRPA with regard to sustainable transport infrastructure but it ought to be appreciated that there were limits to what could be realistically expected of developers and as the Highways Authority West Sussex County Council was ultimately responsible for delivery and this was not necessarily within the gift of the developer.

 

Question

 

‘Will the Cabinet make it clear that a countryside gaps policy will be in the LPR and clarify the consultation process on that policy given it only appears as a possibility in the present version? Could it also be clarified as to what national planning policy support is there for these proposed designations?’

 

Response by Mrs Taylor

 

‘The LPR contains text that makes it clear the countryside gaps will be included in the Submission Plan, upon completion of the landscape study looking at this issue.  Officers are of the view that this can be introduced at that stage, dependent on the findings of the landscape study, but will seek legal clarification that a further regulation 18 consultation is not required.  There is little commentary in the NPPF but as long as the Council is meeting its development needs and not trying to claim that it cannot meet its needs due to a countryside gap policy, then it should be appropriate and defensible to introduce this locally specific policy.  Arun has gap policies within its recently adopted plan.’

 

Question

 

‘Given there is reference to starting work on a possible future large scale single development, should not investigations into green belt designations around Chichester accompany that work so that we avoid creating a continuous Southampton to Brighton conurbation and protect the city’s and surrounding area’s character for the long term?’

 

Response by Mrs Taylor

 

‘DPIP considered a full report on this matter and concluded that there were significant risks to the plan to try to introduce such a policy within the Local Plan Review and that this matter should be addressed with other authorities in the West Sussex and Greater Brighton Strategic Planning Board.’

 Question

 

‘I’ve submitted a number of comments on the revised open space standards which hopefully you will have considered. Could it be confirmed that, for housing developments over 200 dwellings, there will be an about 30% reduction in open space provision as compared with the current standards?’

Response by Mrs Taylor

 

‘The reduction is 26%, but the new approach will deliver larger more usable spaces, rather than smaller areas of amenity space that are expensive to maintain.  It should be borne in mind that our current standards are very generous compared to national benchmarks.’

 

Question

 

‘Should build rates reach the levels proposed, what guarantees are there that development quality will not suffer?’

 

Response by Mrs Taylor  

 

‘The best prospects for ensuring that the Council is able to positively influence the quality of development is through having an up to date plan so that the Planning Committee is able to apply the policies within the plan, rather than losing control of development through the appeal system if the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply.  This is the situation notwithstanding the proposed increase in the levels of development.’

 

(2) Mr A Moss (Fishbourne)

 

Mr Moss spoke in his capacity as the Leader of the Opposition and not as the CDC member for the Fishbourne ward and he was articulating views which had been presented to him from residents all over Chichester District.

 

He began, however, by thanking all officers for their diligent hard work in reaching this point in the Local Plan Review process.

 

He made the following points and received answers (denoted by the use of italics) from Mr Allgrove, Mrs D Shepherd (Chief Executive) and Mr Frost.

 

·       The timing of the consultation period coincided with the Christmas/New Year holiday season and it would be helpful to extend the deadline notwithstanding the tight timetable: the consultation period had in fact been extended from the normal six to eight weeks.

 

·       There were four Cabinet members sitting on CDC’s Development Plan and Infrastructure Panel (DPIP) and the consistency of this arrangement with the important principles of transparency and democracy could be questioned: the membership was in accordance with CDC’s Constitution, which had been approved by the Council; any changes to the DPIP’s composition and thereby to the Constitution would likewise have to be approved by the Council.

 

·       There was a feeling in Chichester District that the Local Plan Review process was being undertaken quickly and a consultation was due to be run when there was still work in progress, not all of the facts were yet known and perhaps the review should have been commenced sooner: it was correct that the process was moving forward as expeditiously as possible in view of the current CLP not being up-to-date with the aforementioned risks of challenges by developers on appeal and the loss of the 40% government cap on housing numbers, which would then result in much higher targets being imposed; the evidence base was in the main now complete or as complete as it could be at this stage; CDC began the review as soon as was reasonably practicable within the very tight timetable constraints.

 

(3) Mr J Brown (Southbourne)

 

Mr Brown asked two questions which he had previously submitted and received responses from Mr Dignum as follows:

 

Question

 

‘It is coming up to a year since a breach of condition relating to the provision of sewer upgrades in Southbourne was reported to the District Council. In that time, no enforcement action has been taken. Southern Water has recently completed a different set of works but to date no request to vary the original condition has been made. No evidence has been supplied that the work required by the original – and still current – condition is not necessary. There are studies in the public domain which show that the waste water network in Southbourne needs upgrading.

 

The Local Plan review recommends substantial new housing numbers for Southbourne. How can this council regain the confidence of residents that the necessary infrastructure works will be carried out? I am not asking you to comment on this application specifically but about the more general point about confidence in the planning and enforcement regime, especially with regards to the provision of infrastructure.’

 

Response by Mr Dignum

 

‘The general point here with respect to the Local Plan Review was whether there would be adequate enforcement resources to ensure the promised infrastructure was provided.  Clearly resources were necessary to provide adequate enforcement and this was a matter for the Cabinet to address as part of the 2019-2020 budget process.’ 

 

Question

 

‘It is clear that all of the new housing proposed for the A259 corridor will substantially increase the burden on that road and the A27. While the Local Plan Review cannot assume that we will be successful in applying for funding under RIS2 for either a ‘Mitigated Northern Bypass’ or a ‘Full Southern Upgrade’, we cannot set aside the feedback that has been received during the consultations of the last few years – especially with regards the environmental inappropriateness of a Fishbourne-Birdham link road.

 

Can the Local Plan Review incorporate a timetable that would enable the Council to hold off on making any decision to commit an unspecified but huge amount of money to a package of mitigation measures for the A27? At least until such a time that we at least know the outcome of our application for RIS2 funding?’

 

 

 

Response by Mr Dignum

‘The Local Plan review timetable as proposed within the Council’s Local Development Scheme will be considered by Cabinet under agenda Item 6. CDC remains focused on achieving improvements to the A27 Chichester Bypass that will provide long term benefits and also address other environmental concerns.

However, despite the recent joint work with WSCC and the BABA27 community group, there is, at this stage, no certainty that a scheme for Chichester will be included in RIS2. Furthermore the draft RIS will not in any case, be published by the DfT until late 2019. Until further stages of the RIS process have been completed, including the announcement by government of a ‘Preferred Route’ which will be several years from now, we will not have sufficient certainty of such funding being available.

Consequently, in preparing the new plan, we must identify a scheme of highway mitigation for the A27 that can be relied upon which is not dependant on RIS2 funding. And as I think members are aware, if we are to retain a local plan that is up to date so that we remain in control of the location and distribution of new development across the plan area, then it is vital that we do all we can to be in a position to adopt a revised Local Plan by 2020.

We should not therefore adjust the local plan timetable as you suggested and risk substantial uncontrolled development. Instead we should continue to work with HE and WSCC so that once there is more certainty about RIS2, we can then review what would then be the necessary highway improvements required to mitigate growth arising from the Local Plan.’

Supplementary Question

 

Mr Brown asked if it could be written into the Local Plan Review that there would be no commitment to mitigation measures until the outcome of the RIS2 funding bid was known.

 

Response by Mr Frost

 

CDC was dependent on Highways England as to when the phasing of A27 works would be triggered and it was not appropriate to write something so prescriptive into the Local Plan Review.

 

In concluding the debate Mr Dignum made the following remarks:

 

The government inspector in approving the CLP in 2015 laid down that a full review had to be completed by 2020, in particular a review of the housing numbers. The CLP laid down a figure of 435 houses per annum within the Local Plan area. The current government formula lays down a figure 40% higher than that, namely 609 houses per annum (hpa) for the Local Plan Review. In addition the South Downs National Park Authority had asked CDC to provide up to 41 hpa. Thus the Local Plan Review would have to identify deliverable sites providing in total up to 650 hpa. The choices of locations had to avoid the SDNP and the Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Beauty, the worst flood zones and take account of the poor access to and from the Manhood Peninsula. It had to be assumed that no major scheme on the A27 would be having an impact during the period up to the next Local Plan review due in 2025.

 

All of these constraints meant that the Manhood would be asked to take a far smaller proportion of new homes ie 16% than its share of population might suggest. If new housing over the new plan period had been allocated in proportion to population, the Manhood would receive twice as many homes, namely 33% of the Local Plan Review total. Housing allocations to specific towns and parishes were rarely received with acclamation but CDC members needed to agree a local plan which would deliver an annual number of homes fixed by the government. It had to be grasped that when a housing figure went down in one area, then somewhere else would need to accept a higher figure in order to balance the books and deliver the Local Plan total.

 

Another major issue was the Local Plan Review’s relationship with the A27. In preparing the document officers had to assume that there would be no major scheme implemented by Highways England before another plan review was due in 2025. However, CDC was required to arrange plans to be prepared to offset the impact of new development on the A27 and local roads. In the absence of a major Highways England scheme, there was no alternative to making relatively minor at grade improvements to the existing A27. This did not mean that CDC was embracing any of the Highways England 2016 options for the existing A27 but it did mean that CDC had to calculate the impact of the new housing that was planned and devise proposals to offset its impact on the whole highways network.

 

In summary, CDC had to ensure it had a new adopted Local Plan by 2020 or confront the risk of uncontrolled development on any site not included in the current CLP and developers making only a minimal contribution to the necessary infrastructure. Accordingly, he commended the making to the Council of the two-fold recommendation.

 

Decision

 

The Cabinet voted unanimously to make the recommendation set out below.    

 

RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL

 

(1)  That the Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach document (attached as appendix 2), as amended in the sixth agenda supplement, and the schedule of proposed changes to the policies map (attached as appendix 3) be approved for an eight-week consultation from 13 December 2018 to 7 February 2019.

 

(2)  That the Director for Planning and the Environment be authorised, following consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning Services, to make minor amendments to the consultation documents prior to their publication.