Agenda item

The Government has published for consultation a draft Draft national Planning Policy Framework.  Once adopted this will supersede all existing national planning policies.  This could have significant implications for B&NES because planning decisions B&NES must reflect national policy.  This report proposes a response to the Government on the NPPF.

The Chair drew the attention of the Cabinet to the Update Report, which had been put into the public gallery in advance of the meeting [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 2 and is available on the Council's website].  The additional material was a submission from the Development Control Committee which the Committee asked Cabinet to submit to government as part of its response.

Councillor Lew Kew made an ad hoc statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 3 but is not available on the Council's website], on behalf of the Conservative Group, saying that there had been a number of misconceptions in the press.  He said that the government’s intentions had been to encourage economic growth; to provide housing; and to do these things sustainably.  He said that the protection of the green belt was paramount.  He welcomed the Cabinet proposals in the main and felt that government should clarify its definition of “sustainable development”.

Councillor John Bull made an ad hoc statement on behalf of the Labour Group in which he said that the framework was flawed throughout.  The word “sustainable” was not defined, which meant that it would be a charter for developers.  He was pleased that the comments of the Local Development Framework Group had been taken into account, especially the abandoning of the brownfield site provisions.  He welcomed the recommendations and hoped that the Council’s response would lead to the framework being amended.

Councillor Gerry Curran, in an ad hoc statement, agreed with Councillor Bull.  He said that it had always been the policy of the Council to use brownfield sites first, and wanted to see this continued.  He observed that it was no longer acceptable to build houses close to where the jobs were – people now wanted a nice house, wherever it was located and the key was now to provide the right transport infrastructure.

Councillor Tim Ball, introduced the item, saying that the draft framework, as had been pointed out by others, did include a number of massive ambiguities, especially over the use of the word “sustainable”.  He had many concerns.  He referred to Councillor Les Kew’s observations about the green belt, and pointed out to him that the framework said that previously developed land could be used.  He promised that all the comments received would be passed back to government.  He repeated his concern that the framework if not amended would prove to be a field day for developers to build anywhere they wanted.

Councillor Ball moved the amended proposals which he had reworded so as to allow all the Council’s responses to be forwarded to government.

Councillor David Dixon seconded the proposal.  He congratulated Councillor Tim Ball and the Planning officers for their hard work in preparing the response.

Councillor Roger Symonds expressed his disappointment that the framework did not propose the removal of Planning Inspectors.

On a motion from Councillor Tim Ball, seconded by Councillor David Dixon, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To AGREE that the comments in paragraphs 5.4 – 5.19 of the report, as well as those contained in Annex 1 (suitably amended to include the comments received from the Development Control Committee and from others during the debate), be forwarded to the Department for Communities and Local Government, with the request that amendments are made to the Draft Framework;

(2) To DELEGATE authority to the Divisional Director for Planning and Transport, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods, to finalise the comments before submission.