Agenda item

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer that invites Members to comment on the draft responses to the White Paper set out in Appendix 1. The paper provides responses to the proposals and consultation questions set by the Government but also makes a number of wider points, beyond the set consultation questions. Members’ views are necessary in order to inform a Leeds City Council response to the Government’s White Paper on the reform of the Planning System.

Further to the minutes of the meeting held 8^th September 2020, the report of the Chief Planning Officer set out the draft responses to the proposals and consultation questions set by the Government.

A copy of the draft responses to the White Paper had been appended to the submitted report.

The Head of Strategic Planning introduced the report, and explained that the draft final response submitted on behalf of the council included a cross party input, together with comments from Members at Full Council, the Climate Emergency Advisory Committee (CEAC) and Members at the Development Plan Panel sub group. The Panel were informed that a request from a Member of the CEAC had been made for the response to seek clarity on the number of permission granted against Build out Rates.

Additionally it was noted that there had been wide cross council officer consultation, as well as engagement outside the council with the Core Cities Group, West Yorkshire Combined Authority and the Leeds Gypsies and Travellers Exchange. The Gypsies and Travellers Exchange had submitted their concerns that they felt marginalised by the proposals, and the proposed removal of the Duty to Cooperate.

The proposals in the White Paper had been split into three topic areas, referred to as Pillars. A summary of each Pillar had been outlined and in turn, the following key points had been highlighted in responding to the Governments questions:

Pillar 1: Planning for Development

·  The LA is of the view that planning requires a broad spatial function as opposed to a regulatory land-use tool;

·  Clarity on the differences between growth and renewal areas;

·  Clarity on whether a ‘zoning approach’ would be implemented and how that would apply across the city and urban geographies;

·  To address the need for volume housebuilders to deliver quality homes.

Pillar 2: Beautiful and Sustainable Place

·  To seek clarity on the definition of what is meant by ‘design’ against the climate emergency, health and wellbeing and inclusive growth agenda, all of which should be planning considerations.

Pillar 3: Planning for Infrastructure and Connected Places

·  To determine whether the reformed levy would be set nationally, locally or a mixture of both to reflect local circumstances;

·  Concerns regarding the loss of flexibility of marginal sites;

·  The increase of developer contributions would be welcomed in line with strategic viability and growth plans;

·  Concerns regarding the LA borrowing against future levy revenues.

In responding to concerns raised by Members, the Panel discussed the following:

·  The impact on the effect of the new mayoralty – the Planning White Paper does not acknowledge a Spatial Development Strategy. The response provided sought to identify how the proposed changes aligned in the context of the Combined Authority plan making processes.

·  Neighbourhood Plans (NPs) – Leeds provided good examples of preparing NPs, and engaged with communities at a bottom up level. Challenges were identified regarding ward capacity, and false perceptions of NPs.

·  Review of EN1 and EN2 – it was confirmed that the Local Plan Review would look at the evolution of those policies.

·  CIL distribution in terms of Parish and Town Councils – it was noted that details had only been provided regarding the Neighbourhood Fund, and it was expected that a technical consultation would follow on the proposals outlined.

·  20-minute neighbourhoods and the concept around having access to education, health and everyday needs within 20 minutes of homes.

The Panel shared a general consensus that the commitment with Leeds reducing its carbon to net zero by 2030 should remain to be reflected in the response, and that the 2050 goal as set out in the Planning White Paper did not reflect the need to address the climate emergency. Additionally, the Executive Member for Climate Change, Transport and Sustainable Development suggested that in relation to Q16, the response should reflect the council’s commitment to the UN sustainability goals locally and to provide best practice examples.

The Head of Strategic Planning informed Members that following publication of the agenda, an additional request had been received to include the need for consideration on a national approach to mineral extraction to support the proposals in the White Paper.

Additionally, the Chief Planning Officer summarised by highlighting that the common theme across the responses sought a need for further clarity, as the proposals were initial at this stage and left a lot of detail to be worked through.  In order to support improvements to the planning system, further details in relation to sustainability aspects and the climate emergency was required.

In conclusion, it was agreed that the following matters raised as issues, would be included within the consultation response relating to:

·  Build-out rates

·  Mineral extraction

·  Planning for Gypsies and Travellers

·  Council delivery in sustainable goals

RESOLVED –

a)  To note the contents of the report, together with the Panel’s discussions;

b)  To note the draft responses with the inclusion of the matters as outlined above, prior to the response being submitted by the Chief Planning Officer, under his delegation, to the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government as the Council’s response to the White Paper.