Agenda item

Report of the Cabinet Member Built Environment

The Cabinet Member Built Environment reminded Members that at the June 2011 meeting, Council had asked for a working group to be established to review the working of the SPD on Garden Land and Infill sites.  What was before Members was the result of discussions by the working group on 2 November and the Planning Committee on 17 November, at which the recommendations of the working group were endorsed by a large majority. Members on all sides of the Chamber, in Council and Planning Committee had agreed that the SPD was a valuable addition to the Councils defence of garden land, with benefits including, aiding Officers and the Planning Committee to oppose garden land development, plans being withdrawn, recommendations being changed from approval to refusal and in numerous cases where pre-application advice had been sought by prospective developers and resulting plans had been improved.  There was no way of knowing how many schemes it had prevented from being put forward.

The SPD’s role in planning appeals had undoubtedly been a positive one, a sentiment supported by Councillor Godwin at Planning Committee on 21 July when he said “Since the SPD was introduced, most inspectors considered it a document of material value which carried weight when making decisions”.

At Council in June 2011 Members raised a number of concerns, the first of which was that there was some confusion about the Council’s interpretation of Local Plan Policies HS1 and HS2, in light of changes to national policy statement PPS3.  This has now been clarified and both the working group and the Planning Committee were of the view that this should be subject to further clarification.  

The second concern was the SPD would require revision when the Localism Bill and the final version of the National Planning Policy Framework were passed. The Localism Act had received Royal Assent in November 2011 and the publication of the NPPF was imminent.  Both the working group and Planning Committee agreed that once passed, the working group would need to meet again to consider any implications and this was incorporated in the recommendations of this report.

The third and most contentious issue was the question of whether the document was too flexible.  The document allowed flexibility in certain areas whereby it stated that certain developments ‘would not normally be permitted’.   Whilst some Members felt that this flexibility should be taken away, large majorities of the working group and Planning Committee disagreed.  He urged Members not to forget that the SPD was not and never could be, a guaranteed way of preventing any garden land development.  The guidance was a material consideration in planning decisions but it did not have the status of policy and even if it were, it could not have the effect of stopping all garden land development.  Government policy was clear, although garden land was no longer regarded as brownfield land, it could be developed in appropriate circumstances.

He suggested that in order to resist garden land development the Council would need to advance sound reasons based on individual schemes and the suitability of the particular site.  The SPD was a tool box of ideas and arguments that should be used to protect against bad development and improve more acceptable schemes.

It was clear that taking a dogmatic approach and not allowing any garden development on principle was not acceptable to Government inspectors but this was not to say that nothing could be done, but rather, that each case should be argued on its merits or demerits.

The Cabinet Member Built Environment did not support garden land development and wanted to resist development that would destroy the character of some of the best residential neighbourhoods in the town, including some in his own ward (St.Peter’s).  This would require an intelligent approach, one that was consistent with national planning policy, one that was likely to be effective and that was what, in his view, this planning guidance provided.

A number of Members voiced concerns about the statutory review; it had been almost 4 months since the recommendations had been agreed by the working group and Planning Committee and in that time the Localism Act had been enacted and the NPPF was due to be passed within the next 2 weeks.  Members considered that this review should be undertaken as a priority and the SPD updated as necessary. 

Some Members were unconvinced by the argument that the SPD should offer a degree of flexibility and felt that there were areas in which the guidance should be far more prescriptive than stating ‘not normally permitted’.  This wording was condemned by these Members as unclear and therefore meaningless.

Those Members who disagreed and felt that flexibility should be inherent in planning documents did so as they believed that it would be unwise of the Council to give the appearance that they were against back garden development.  They were of the opinion that the current wording offered the flexibility to protect against those inappropriate schemes and increase the quality of what were acceptable schemes.  These Members felt strongly that each scheme should be considered on its individual merits. 

A member was concerned that should the SPD be more prescriptive and less flexible, there would be an inability to approve acceptable schemes and this could lead to an increase in applications to demolish existing properties, whereby developers could put numerous properties in its place.

In closing, the Cabinet Member Built Environment assured Members that, as set out in the report, the working group would be reconvened to review the SPD once the NPPF had been published, which admittedly, could be any day now.  The working group would be tasked with considering to what extent the pieces of policy affected the SPD and it could be that the NPPF made it more difficult to allow back garden development.  Ultimately, he respected the views of the Planning Committee, who had, by a large majority, accepted the recommendations of the working group, as set out in the report.  

Upon a vote it was

RESOLVED that the decision of Planning Committee set out in paragraph 4.1 of the report be noted, namely:

• The SPD should continue in use in its present form without a statutory review, at least until the Localism Bill is enacted and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is published.

• Textual amendments necessary as a result of changes in higher level policy should be re-published as an addendum.

• Members should be provided with a further note to explain current policy considerations, following clarification on the implementation of Local Plan Policy HS1 and recent appeals relating to this.

• A further meeting of the Member working group is arranged following the publication of the approved NPPF to consider its effects on decision-making.

(Voting: CARRIED with 3 Abstentions)