Visitors and members of the public who are unfamiliar with the building and procedures are advised that:

(a)      The fire alarm is a continuous loud ringing. In the event that a fire drill is planned during the meeting, the Chair will advise of this.

(b)      Exit routes are signposted, one directly to a fire escape at the end of the corridor, the other to the stairs opposite the lifts.

(c)      In the event of the alarm sounding, leave the building via the nearest safe exit and gather at the assembly point on the far side of the car park. Do not leave the assembly point or re-enter the building until advised to do so. Do not use the lifts.

(d)      Anyone unable to use the stairs should make themselves known during this agenda item.

Not applicable as the meeting was held virtually.

To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 6 July 2022 (Minute Nos. 172 – 178) as a correct record.

The Chair asked that the minutes be deferred for consideration at the next meeting so that notes from the informal meetings could also be included.  This was agreed by Members.

Councillors should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their families or friends.

The Chair will ask Members if they have any disclosable pecuniary interests (DPIs) or disclosable non-pecuniary interests (DNPIs) to declare in respect of items on the agenda. Members with a DPI in an item must leave the room for that item and may not participate in the debate or vote. 

Aside from disclosable interests, where a fair-minded and informed observer would think there was a real possibility that a Member might be biased or predetermined on an item, the Member should declare this and leave the room while that item is considered.

Members who are in any doubt about interests, bias or predetermination should contact the monitoring officer for advice prior to the meeting.

No interests were declared.

The Planning Policy Manager introduced the report which set-out the risks of progressing the Local Plan Review (LPR) in light of recent changes in Central Government personnel and delays with expected policy guidance at national level.  She advised that it was recommended to delay the LPR timetable so that any formal consultation could take place when the Council had greater certainty about the government’s direction of travel.  She advised that detailed work on the LPR would continue with a view to being able to undertake the Regulation 19 consultation under the transitional arrangements once the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Bill (LURB) had gained Royal Assent.  She explained that it would likely mean a delay to a Regulation 19 consultation of around 12 to 18 months.

The Planning Policy Manager spoke about the significant changes at national level and the proposed planning system which were put forward in August 2020 with the publication of a Planning White Paper.  Subsequently, an alternative approach was followed which proposed changes to existing regulation, policy and guidance.  The prospectus of changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which was expected in July 2022 had not been forthcoming.

The Planning Policy Manager said that delaying the Regulation 19 consultation allowed for policy at the national level to settle down and avoid abortive work and allowed for consideration of longer consultation time frames.  She assured Members that the commitment to producing a LPR remained, and officers recommended it be paused for the reasons set out in the report.

The Planning Policy Manager said that officers would continue to work on the evidence base, making sure it was up-to-date and proportionate to support a sound plan.  Work was already underway to assess the policies and proposals of the adopted local plan for compliance with the NPPF.  Officers would continue to keep a close eye on the LURB and other national policy changes, including new responsibility forthcoming from the Environment Act so that a revised Local Development Scheme (LDS) could be prepared and formal consultation and submission of the LPR could take place.

The Chair invited Members to comment.  Questions and points raised included:

·         Were other councils proposing to delay their local plans in the same way?;

·         would the Council be at risk from speculative developments if the LDS was suspended?;

·         supported the proposal as there was no clear direction from Central Government;

·         considered the proposal was the right approach;

·         agreed with the report and considered it was the Council’s only option;

·         what impact would the Housing Land Supply Position Statement have on the five year housing supply?;

·         officers should provide further updates as they happened;

·         supported the proposal to suspend given that the prospectus was still unpublished, and Government policy was unknown;

·         if the Council agreed to pause would the risk from speculative developments increase?;

·         the recommendation to pause was a common-sense approach;

·         concerned that Central Government were unsure what direction they wanted to take so it could be some time before the Council had a Local Plan;  ...  view the full minutes text for item 367.