Agenda item

Report of the Cabinet Member 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 affordable housing were key, and that he was disappointed at the government’s failure to prioritise the ongoing housing and homelessness crises. None of the proposed changes would deal with either problem, and seemed to focus instead on facilitating private sector development at the expense of affordable housing. He endorsed the CBC response, but suggested that he would have been harsher.

The Cabinet Member Cyber and Safety added that the government’s proposals seemed to imply that the UK’s lack of housing was due to local authorities’ unwillingness to make land supply available. He stressed that it was disingenuous to blame councils, since there needed to be an end user in order for houses to be built. He described the White Paper’s proposals as politically driven, and suggested they would do nothing to address the very real problems within the UK planning system.

The Cabinet Member Climate and Communities criticised the current planning system’s failure to properly deliver affordable housing, but suggested that nothing in the government’s proposals would solve this. Instead, it would adversely affect local communities, fail to tackle climate change and reduce the number of affordable houses. Any changes to the planning process must be transparent and democratic, and should safeguard the housing and employment opportunities that the Joint Core Strategy sought to deliver. The Leader of the Council agreed that giving greater power to the private sector, which had an obvious interest in limiting the amount of housing available, would not solve the housing crisis.

The vote was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED THAT:

1.    This Cabinet Paper form 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.