Agenda item

The Strategic Planning and Conservation Manager presented the Response to the Proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework and other changes to the planning system for Members’ consideration. In doing so it was stated that there was one recommendation included in the report for Members’ approval. This was as follows:

The response to the ‘Proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework and other changes to the planning system’ be submitted to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG).

In presenting the report it was noted that there had been detailed discussions with Members at a Planning Advisory Panel (PAP) meeting whereby all Members had been given the opportunity to provide responses to the proposed reforms question document.

It was outlined that this had been a detailed consultation document and had included one hundred and six questions in respect of the proposed reforms.

This was then submitted as an Officer response on behalf of Redditch Borough Council.

Members’ attention was drawn to the significant issues to note within the proposed reforms. These included the new way of calculating the housing target number for new house building across the country. It was clarified that the multiplier would now take into account housing stock within an area. It was suggested that by using this calculation an increase in the numbers of houses being built within Redditch per annum would increase from one hundred and forty-three to four hundred and eighty-nine. Another area to note was that it was proposed that there would be a reinstatement of strategic / regional planning and the introduction of a ‘grey belt’ policy. Which could potentially cause confusion in the future due to the ambiguity of what this term meant in real terms. The proposed reforms also included a stronger focus on the delivery of social rented housing, new intervention criteria on local plans and new planning application fees.

Officers were hopeful that a response from Central Government would be available prior to Christmas 2024. However, a definitive date had not been finalised at the time of this meeting.

Following the presentation of the report, the Leader expressed his concerns regarding the submission of the response prior to its agreement by the Executive Committee. It was felt that the response should have been approved by the Executive Committee prior to it being submitted. It was explained that this had been an Officer response, and that the submission had been discussed in detail at the PAP meeting when Members had been provided with an opportunity to make suggestions that were included in the response document, as highlighted earlier in the meeting. It was also confirmed that this was within the Officer Delegations and due to the strict deadline of response times,that there had been no opportunity to bring this report to the Executive Committee prior to this meeting. It was raised that there potentially could have been the opportunity to have an Extraordinary Executive Committee or Full Council meeting. However, on this occasion this was notrequested. Officers also confirmed that if Members were unhappy with the response, it could be withdrawn or amended at any time. It was further noted that Officers would be working with the Legal team in respect of Delegations and Members noted that this would be something they would also look at.

Some Members explained that they considered the response a measured and well balance response as a result of the discussions at the PAP meeting and that Members had been provided with an opportunity to both agree or disagree with the proposed reforms.

Members queried when the new housing numbers would be applied from. It was reported that this would be in December 2026. However, the numbers would probably be kept under review and progress tracked as part of the implementation of the new Local Plan.

A specific query in respect of question fifteen within the response document was raised by Members. Question fifteen read as follows:

‘Do you agree that Planning Practice Guidance should be amended to specify that the appropriate baseline for the standard method is housing stock rather than the latest household projections?’

Officers explained that there could never be a ‘right way’ to calculate housing numbers. However, included in the response was that there was a need in the future to utilise a clear baseline when calculating housing numbers as opposed to an aging projection dataset.

In terms of Climate Change, there was a query regarding the statement within the report suggesting that there was no impact on Climate Change as a result of the report. Members questioned this response as there would inevitably be some Climate Change impact as a result of extra house building in the future. Officers explained that Climate Change would be looked at once the proposed reforms had been implemented and as part of the Local Plan preparation. However, this report and the response within the appendix did not have a specific effect on Climate Change.

Following the discussion Members requested that an amendment to the recommendation be made. The amendment was as follows:

‘The response to the ‘Proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework and other changes to the planning system’, having already been submitted to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) be noted and endorsed.’

RECOMMENDED to COUNCIL that

The response to the ‘Proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework and other changes to the planning system’, having already been submitted to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) be noted and endorsed.