4
The Assistant Cabinet Member for Planning and Coastal Management explained that report ES/0209 provided an update on the emerging Suffolk Coastal Local Plan and the recently published results of the Housing Delivery Test.
With regard to the Suffolk Coastal Local Plan, the Planning Policy and Delivery Manager reminded Members that the Local Plan for the former Suffolk Coastal area was well progressed and the hearings had taken place in August and September 2019. During the hearings, the Inspector had requested re-wording of policies and text and also took away issues for further consideration. Since then, the Inspector's post hearing letter had been received on 10 February 2020 which set out his thoughts on those issues. The Inspector had emphasised that the examination was not yet concluded and his comments were without prejudice. Of particular note was that he considered the Plan likely to be capable of being found legally compliant and sound. The letter requested a response from the Council, in particular to the areas that might require further evidence to be prepared, and therefore more time, so he could decide how to take the examination forward. An initial response had been sent stating that the Council anticipated that no further time would be required. Members attention was drawn to paragraph 6 in the report which set out the matters the Inspector had considered further. One significant change related to the proposed removal of the Innocence Farm employment allocation, further details of which were contained in paragraph 7.
The Planning Policy and Delivery Manager explained that the timetable was still subject to the Inspector's views but it was expected that public consultation on the Inspector's Main Modifications would commence at the end of March for at least six weeks and once the Inspector had received and considered responses, he would then publish his Report. Based on current timings, it was anticipated that the Plan would be presented to Full Council in July 2020.
With regard to the Housing Delivery Test, the Planning Policy and Delivery Manager explained that this had been introduced in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2018 and was the Government's measure of housing delivery against housing requirements at the local authority level. The second round of results for 2019, based on the former Districts, had been published on 13 February 2020 and showed the Suffolk Coastal area at 127% which was 1% down on 2018 and the Waveney area at 89% which was 17% up on 2018. The Waveney results had triggered two measures, a 20% increase had been added to the housing requirement in the calculation of the 5 year housing land supply and a Housing Action Plan needed to be produced. However, the results just published were as expected and acceptable with regard to meeting housing requirements. The extra buffer on housing land supply was therefore reduced to 5%. However, there was still an obligation to publish a Housing Action Plan within six months of the results, that was by August 2020. Moving forward, from November 2020 onwards, published results would give one figure for the East Suffolk Council area.
The Planning Policy and Delivery Manager drew specific attention to the information in paragraph 3.6 of the report which gave details of the unimplemented planning permissions as at 1 April 2019. The number of dwellings not yet implemented was nearly 10,000, which was the equivalent of 10-11 years supply not yet delivered.
Members raised specific questions with regard to:
- The Inspector's proposal to remove Areas to be Protected from Development from the Local Plan, with particular reference to Martlesham Neighbourhood Plan.
- Housing delivery between now and 2036 and whether the unimplemented dwellings as of 1 April 2019 were included in the figures.
The Planning Policy and Delivery Manager confirmed that Areas to be Protected from Development included a range of sites that had been added to over time since 2001 but did not provide a comprehensive picture and to provide it would be hugely resource intensive. Even if further work was undertaken, the Inspector might still decide to remove the policy. There are other relevant policies in the Local Plan that could be used to assess development proposals in relation to these sites, whether open spaces or for retaining separation between settlements, such as biodiversity, character, landscape, open space and countryside policies. The areas protected through the Martlesham Neighbourhood Plan would continue to be protected and the ideal way forward was for Neighbourhood Plans to include similar Local Green Space policies and that would have equal weight in decision making as the Local Plan policies.
It was confirmed that that the unimplemented planning permissions would contribute to the housing requirement for the period to 2036 and were not over and above.
In terms of lapsed planning permissions, the Planning Policy and Delivery Manager advised that a rate for lapsed planning permissions was not built into the housing delivery figures. The potential for lapsing or delay was to some extent dealt with by over allocating land for housing in the Local Plan. Other measures included monitoring and managing housing supply, such as through close engagement with developers to understand delivery and related issues, which in turn informed the preparation of the annual 5 year housing land supply position. In response to a Member's reference to the fact that there were areas where builders did not want to build, the Planning Policy and Delivery Manager advised that more detailed figures on lapsed planning permissions would be obtained and circulated to Members for information.
There being no further discussion, it was
RESOLVED
That the content of the report on the emerging Suffolk Coastal Local Plan and the Housing Delivery Test be noted and endorsed.