Agenda item

A report was considered with options regarding the Local Plan. This was in light of the Inspector’s correspondence ID16 and ID19 and the fact that key information arising from DHA’s Junction 6 (M25) capacity study and mitigation opportunities was now available. As agreed at the previous meeting on the 5^th January 2022, DHA’s traffic modelling analysis had been sent to the Inspector.

Regarding the paragraph in the report titled “Consultation”, Councillor Duck requested that the second sentence be removed or qualified. It was qualified to state that the meeting referred to had taken place on the 7^th December 2021 and had concentrated on DHA Transport’s report on junction 6 (M25).

The options presented within the report were:

1.      Withdraw the draft Local Plan and prepare a new plan

            This option would result in the withdrawal of the Plan and commence the preparation of a new Plan as per current national planning policy. This option was raised by the Inspector in paragraph 63 of ID16 and at paragraph 22 of ID19. For the benefit of context, the same details and workplan etc applicable to this option would also apply if the Plan were found unsound.

2.      Continue with the current plan and modifications process

The examination would be paused, and the Council would be required to undertake further work on matters to an agreed timescale, including the provision of strategic infrastructure, Objectively Assessed Housing Need (OAN); housing requirement and supply (including the Garden Village proposal); and provision for gypsies and travellers. The Inspector had identified several tasks in ID16 requiring completion before he could continue with the examination.

3.      Continue with the current Local Plan and modifications process securing a 5-year Plan

As per Option 2, except that the Council would focus on a shorter adoption period in the knowledge that the Local Plan would need to be substantively reviewed after 5 years. It would continue to be prepared with the Local Plan period being 2013 to 2033 unless, at the point of review, it was determined the Plan should change.

4.      Continue with a plan as set out in TED48

            This option was originally presented to the Inspector as a “without prejudice”, alternative approach to progressing the Plan as set out in TED48. The intention of the option is different to Option 3 in that it changes the Plan period to fifteen years from 2013-2028 in accordance with paragraph 157 of the NPPF 2012, under which this Local Plan is being prepared. As with Option 3, it includes a 5-year review policy. However, where Option 3 would still consider the Garden Community as part of the Plan, Option 4 places no reliance on the Garden Community and would potentially require a new spatial strategy to be determined.  The Local Plan would be focused on the allocated sites and would make best use of the remaining capacity of Junction 6 of M25.

For each option, the report contained indicative timescales and an analysis of risks, opportunities and caveats. 

The report recommended that a response be issued to the Inspector attaching the options analysis referred to above and seeking a decision about how the Council should proceed. 

Councillor Lockwood proposed that, regarding Annex 1 to the options analysis (table of work required by the inspector) the explanatory notes in the row for ‘Heritage Assessments for HSG06 and HSG12’ be amended (in the version to accompany the letter of response) to more closely reflect the wording of the Inspector’s comments in ID-16 (i.e. requesting assessments of the significance of the heritage assets for which there is potential for proposed housing allocations to cause harm etc). This was agreed.

Members discussed whether all four options should be identified as viable alternatives. 

Councillor Prew, seconded by Councillor Elias, proposed that the response should identify Option 2 as the only option deemed viable by the Council. Upon being put to the vote, this amendment was lost.  

It was agreed that the letter should be amended to express the Council’s view that the Inspector should discount Option 1 (the information would still be retained in the accompanying options analysis) because it would:

·      not be financially viable for the Council due to the substantial costs involved and the significant strain it would impose on the Council’s limited resources;

·      significantly increase the risk of speculative planning applications and appeals; and

·      present extensive risks and challenges to residents and businesses throughout the District.  

            R E S O L V E D – that authority be delegated to the Chief Planning Officer, in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Committee, to issue a response to the Planning Inspector in accordance with the agreed amendments referred to above.