The Planning Service Manager introduced the item and took members through each of the headings in Appendix A to the report, indicating the main issues and highlighting the draft response comments. There was a longstanding commitment by the Government to simplify Planning Policy, deleting all PPGs. Also their policy is to introduce a presumption in favour of sustainable development.

Delivering Sustainable Development (paras 9-19)

The Group discussed that there was no definition of “sustainable” in the Government document and that, although this was a key principle, it was very vague. It was felt that this would weaken the role of the Plan and lead to more appeals.

One member questioned whether the Council really wanted more clarity, which could tie its hand more.

The Planning Service Manager said that the local Plan should be the key to “sustainability” as that was based on where sustainable development would be acceptable, and that the District’s Plans should be recognised as such. Members asked that he expand on this point in the actual response.

Plan Making (paras 20-52)

The Planning Service Manager said that existing plans could be considered out of date if no Certificate of Conformity had been made. Members discussed how this would happen in practice and it was hoped that this could be done through correspondence, rather than through any more formal process. It was agreed that this required clarification and members asked for this to be included in the response.

A member also suggested that timescales should be imposed on Government to carry out this process and members asked for that point also to be included.

Planning for Prosperity: Transport (paras 82-94)

Members noted that the main change was the deletion of all parking standards.

Planning for People: Housing (paras 107-113)

The Planning Service Manager said that Government wants to increase housing development across the country. He indicated that sufficient development plans are already in place to meet the “5-year” plan requirement, but that the proposed “5-year plus 20%” requirement could result in issues towards the end of the plan period, such as the threat of having to release reserve sites.

One member was concerned by the approach being proposed for Rural Exception Sites. She suggested that in these cases you were more likely to have the local community behind you. The Planning Service Manager agreed to strengthen the response on this issue (bottom of page 161).

Gypsies and Travellers (not included in the NPPF)

The Planning Service Manager said that the comments were repeating previous responses in this area. He clarified that the definition of “Travellers” includes “having a travelling lifestyle”.

Members discussed that the proposal to introduce a 5-year supply of suitable sites would be unworkable in practice as Travellers do not look to form such sites in the way that developers look for development sites. It was considered that Councils would be in an impossible position if this proposal was introduced.

General

The Planning Service Manager said that he would welcome any additional comments that any members wished to make.

The Chairman thought that, looking ahead, she could see a point where Planning Policy statements would need to be created for what is missing.

Resolved:      that the comments in the Appendix form the basis of the Council’s response to the consultation to be agreed by the Portfolio Holder.