Agenda item

Buckinghamshire Council has a statutory duty to produce a new Local Plan for Buckinghamshire by April 2025.  This presents a valuable opportunity to shape the growth of Buckinghamshire.  Members will receive an overview of the key steps necessary in developing the plan and an indication of timescales.

Contributors:

Cllr Gareth Williams, Cabinet Member for Planning and Regeneration

Ian Thompson, Corporate Director, Planning, Growth and Sustainability

Darran Eggleton, Head of Planning, Policy and Compliance

Ian Manktelow, Planning Policy Manager

The Chairman welcomed Cllr Gareth Williams, Cabinet Member for Planning and Regeneration, Steve Bambrick, Service Director, Planning and Environment and Darran Eggleton, Head of Planning Policy and Compliance to the meeting.  The Cabinet Member presented members with an overview of work that had recently begun on the development of a new Buckinghamshire Local Plan and the following main points were noted:

• The Buckinghamshire Local Plan is a vital document which will determine how development can take place across the county, including housing and employment sites, during the period of 2022-2040. It was important that it was prepared well because it would have a lasting impact and would sit alongside the county’s Growth Plan to set the vision for Buckinghamshire.
• £750,000 had been set aside to support the development of the plan.
• The Planning White Paper proposed significant changes to the local plan process, not least being a reduction in the timeline for producing one to just 30 months. However, with the legislation being delayed until 2022, following the appointment of a new Secretary of State, the team had no choice but to begin the process. They acknowledged that they would have to be agile enough to move at pace once any changes to the process were confirmed. Previous local plans had taken 5-7 years to get approval.
• The Council wanted to include local residents and listen to their concerns in relation to planning. Over 700 people had responded to the Statement of Community Involvement consultation and as a result of this, the Council had committed to consult on the draft local plan, which could take up to a year. This might have to be revised in light of legislative changes.
• An initial call for brownfield sites had not produced a significant number of viable options so far.  These sites would likely yield 5,500 homes which represents only 10% of the overall target of 55,000 houses in total (based on 2014 government figures).
• Members and residents were invited to submit any other brownfield sites for consideration for inclusion in the new local plan. To give members an indication, Steve Bambrick advised that brownfield sites might usually account for around 20% of required housing numbers.
• The Council also had a duty to co-operate with neighbouring local authorities when preparing their local plan and this could impact housing numbers.
• There could also be an impact on Buckinghamshire’s housing numbers as a result of the Cambridge/Oxford Arc spatial framework.
• Until the new Local Plan is in place, the planning frameworks set out in the existing local plans e.g Wycombe Local Plan, Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan, will remain the benchmark against which planning applications are judged.

The Chairman thanked the Cabinet Member for his introduction and invited questions from members. In response to questions and during the subsequent discussions, the following main points were noted:

• Steve Bambrick explained that the Planning Policy team had 26 members of staff. During the first year of the Council their focus had been on finalising the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan and now their attention was turning to the Buckinghamshire Local Plan. There were 7 vacancies in the team currently, but recruitment had been relatively successful as the Council was an attractive place for ambitious planners to work a one of the largest planning authorities in the country. Even with those vacancies, the team were managing the workload effectively.
• It was noted that transport connections between where we live and where we work should be key considerations in the new local plan.  The Cabinet Member agreed and suggested that the Local Plan was a means to leverage funding for the associated infrastructure.
• Whilst it was important to listen and consult with residents, the Council needed to get a local plan in place in a timely fashion, so there was a balance to be struck.
• Brownfield sites included in a local plan have to be ‘deliverable’ – for example if a landowner had no intention of allowing development on the site then this couldn’t be included. Whilst the Council wanted to prioritise brownfield over greenfield sites, it is was unrealistic to think that the housing numbers could be delivered via brownfield sites alone.
• In response to a question regarding whether the government housing targets could change, the Cabinet Member suggested some examples of how it might – the government could move some of the housing numbers to other areas as part of its levelling up agenda or government could choose to use more up to date figures from the Office for National Statistics, which would lead to a reduction in Buckinghamshire’s housing requirements. Conversely the Council could choose to build more than the government target in order to promote more affordable homes. However, the Cabinet Member was not working on the assumption that the housing target would reduce.
• The Cabinet Member confirmed that if a reduced timescale of 30 months was introduced as part of new planning legislation in 2022 the commitment to consult on a draft local plan would have to be withdrawn.
• A member commented that he had been impressed with the initial communications he had seen in connection with the Buckinghamshire Local Plan and asked what the reaction had been from the public to date. The Cabinet Member reported that the Local Plan consultation opened on 29^th November and had received 1140 responses in the first 10 days and would remain open until 11^th February so there was still plenty of time for people to share their thoughts.
• Whilst noting that a budget of £750,000 had been set aside for developing the local plan, a member queried if there was a risk of this being overspent. The Cabinet Member indicated that the service would work within that budget but variables that he had highlighted, such as a change to a 30-month timescale or additional housing or employment demand in the county as a result of the Cambridge/Oxford Arc proposals, could result in a need to employ consultants and therefore risk an overspend.
• Steve Bambrick assured members that previous experience in developing local plans had informed this budget. It would be monitored closely so that if further funding was needed this could be requested through the annual medium term financial planning process.
• A member commented about the need for infrastructure considerations to be a priority in the new local plan. It was important to preserve green space and consider traffic implications of new homes. The Cabinet Member agreed that infrastructure was crucial but there was not always sufficient funding to deliver it. This was often why development would be added on to existing settlements.
• In response to a question regarding converting retail space into higher density housing, the Cabinet Member gave examples of how this has been delivered well, with sufficient parking and green space in Cambridge. He advised that a scheme had been recently approved locally which would deliver several hundred flats and would also help to revitalise the town centre.
• A member reported that she had found the consultation document slightly confusing as the numbering system reversed between the earlier and later questions which might have caught some people out. The Cabinet Member promised to share this feedback with the communications team.
• In response to a question regarding provision for truly affordable housing, the Cabinet Member explained that Cllr Nick Naylor, Cabinet Member for Housing and Regulatory Services was leading a working group on affordable housing which would feed into the development of the local plan. This was an important consideration for the council as the average salary in the county was £29,000 in comparison with an average house price of £470,000. The Council was reviewing its own estate with a view to releasing some land for development, but it was important to balance the need to develop affordable housing options versus the need to maximise capital receipts to deliver value for money for taxpayers.
• The lack of affordable housing was also an issue nationally which might require a national solution.  The Committee might want to consider discussing affordability in more detail at a future meeting.
• A member asked if the Council could share the methodology by which the housing needs figures had been calculated, noting that the 2018 ONS figures were lower than 2014 and asked whether it was possible for the housing needs figures to be reduced by virtue of paragraph 11b, footnote 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) due to the areas of green belt and outstanding natural beauty in Buckinghamshire. The Cabinet Member offered a member briefing session on how the statistics are compiled and therefore how the housing need figures were reached as this would be helpful in setting a context.                      ACTION: Gareth Williams
• With regards to the suggestion of assuming a lower housing needs figure, Steve Bambrick explained that there was a formal process to request that the standard methodology be lowered and to do this, Buckinghamshire would have to demonstrate that there were insufficient appropriate sites to meet the housing needs.  With the smaller legacy councils, such as Chiltern and South Bucks, where there was a high proportion of green belt, this was easier to demonstrate. However now as a larger unitary authority, all potential sites from across the county area would have to be assessed, which might make it more difficult to challenge the housing numbers. The initial identification and assessment of sites was building an evidence base and if as a result of this, it could be shown that housing needs could not be fulfilled, then the option of lowering the standard methodology could be considered.
• In response to a question about how windfall homes would be taken into account in the housing numbers, the Cabinet Member explained that historically the numbers of windfall homes had exceeded the figures included in the local plan and the Cabinet Member had asked officers if this historical average could therefore be used. It was important to strike a realistic balance otherwise the Planning Inspector could reject the plan.
• A member asked how they could access information on S106 and infrastructure plans for their own local areas.  The Cabinet Member advised that he would be happy for information to be shared with local members and suggested that it might be possible to produce a local member report detailing S106 and CIL spending.                              ACTION: Gareth Williams
• The Cabinet Member also commented that he was keen to improve member engagement with planning more generally and in the new year, Member Surgeries were being introduced, whereby members could book time with planning officers to discuss any specific cases in their areas.
• In response to a member question about the powers of the Planning Inspector, it was noted that the local plan has to be judged to be deliverable. Inspectors can be challenged but only if they have made an error in law.

The Chairman thanked the Cabinet Member, Steve Bambrick and Darran Eggleton for their presentation and for answering members’ questions.