Issue - meetings

Report of the Cabinet Member Economy and Development

RESOLVED THAT:

1.    This Cabinet Paper forms the basis of the Council’s response to ‘Planning for the Future’;

2.    Responsibility for preparing and submitting the Council’s response to ‘Planning for the Future’, including the detailed/technical questions included in the consultation be delegated to the Head of Planning in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Economy and Development.

The Cabinet Member Economy and Development presented the report, explaining that it highlighted the council’s key concerns about the government’s ‘Planning for the Future’ White Paper, which set out a plan to reform the UK planning system in the most significant way since WW2. The White Paper cited perceived flaws within the current system, including complexity, uncertainty, speed, and system failure, and sought to reform, streamline and modernise with a focus on sustainability and the government’s ‘build, build, build’ agenda. The proposed reforms would radically change the funding of infrastructure provision and the way land is allocated, particularly through the adoption of a zonal planning system – in which all land in England, including Cheltenham, would be categorised as being for either growth, renewal or protection.

The council’s response particularly focused on the need for any reforms to address planning in its fullest sense, rather than just housing delivery. The centralisation of control over planning, including setting housing numbers for local authorities, was a particular cause for concern, as it could damage local democracy and decision-making. CBC recently relaxed local planning controls as part of the Covid recovery, through consultation with local members, and the results of this highlighted the importance of planning at the local level, as local authorities understand what their area requires. Any reforms must also put climate change front and centre, rather than as an afterthought, and simplifying requirements such as climate change assessments could be dangerous. Despite promises made in the White Paper, it was hard to see affordable housing commitments chiming with this. Instead, it would likely incentivise off-site affordable housing delivery. Further to this, the government had outlined its intention to impose time constraints and financial penalties on councils, but offered no such measures to prevent developers land-banking.

She emphasised that zonal planning would effectively deregulate the planning system, unless predefined rules specifically prohibited the development. The proposals in the White Paper were too simplistic, and did not demonstrate the solid evidence and community engagement necessary to justify such changes. The significantly accelerated timeframes would also likely damage plans for affordable housing delivery and have a negative impact on local communities. She added that the overall lack of detail did not allow thorough understanding of the government’s planned reforms and their consequences, leaving significant questions to be answered.

The Cabinet Member Healthy Lifestyles asked about the implications for the Joint Core Strategy, whether local green spaces were safeguarded under the proposals, and why the government did not use its power to stop developers land-banking. The Cabinet Member Economy and Development responded that there was not enough detail in the government’s plans to reassure them that green spaces and the social good they bring would be adequately protected. The Planning Officer (David Oakhill) updated members on the developing situation regarding a planning application on a piece of local green space.

The Cabinet Member Housing praised planning officers for their concise and analytical summary of a lengthy White Paper. He stressed that the consequences for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7