Agenda item

The Head of Planning presented a report (previously circulated) which outlined the implications of the draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) for the Ryedale Plan and presented options for how the District Council could proceed with the plan-making process. The draft NPPF had been released for consultation and a proposed RDC response to the document was included in the report.

 

Members then separately considered and debated both parts of the officer recommendation contained in paragraph 2.1 of the report.

 

It was the Council’s intention to progress the production of the Core Strategy followed by a Site Allocation document in due course. Policies in the Core Strategy had been prepared in line with this approach and made reference to the Site Allocation document which would provide greater clarity around the location, deliverability, viability and types of sites that would be needed to address development requirements.

 

On balance, it was considered that not progressing the Core Strategy represented a greater risk. Pursuing its adoption was critical to meet the Government’s ambitions for growth, to address local development requirements and to establish certainty over strategic issues which would, in turn, provide a framework to support neighbourhood planning. The approach enabled a greater engagement of local people and neighbourhoods in the site allocations stage of plan making without the complexities of agreeing strategic objectives and policies.

 

For the most part, it was considered that textual amendments to the Core Strategy could be used to signal the Council’s intent as regards Neighbourhood Planning. This would be achieved through:

·      Amendments to the text at the beginning of the document to explain the relationship of the Ryedale Plan with Neighbourhood Planning

·      Clarification the nature of the Ryedale Plan policies as being strategic policies

·      References to Neighbourhood Plans as a key means of delivery of Ryedale Plan policies in the implementation tables accompanying each strategic policy.

·      Reference to matters which neighbourhoods may wish to address locally in the implementation tables, where appropriate

·      Removing/ amending references to specific local issues which could be considered within the remit of neighbourhoods to determine

 

It was considered that the proposed procedural changes had limited implications for the production of the Ryedale Plan. In order to demonstrate that cross boundary considerations had been addressed, a mechanism could be that the North Yorkshire Spatial Planning Board considered and agreed that cross-boundary issues had been taken into account in the preparation of the Ryedale Plan. In advance of this an officer level meeting of neighbouring authorities had been convened for mid September to consider and discuss how the duty to collaborate would work in practice in an on-going way in the sub region.

 

It was considered that it was in relation to planning for housing that the draft NPPF has the most significant implications for the emerging Ryedale Plan. In light of the NPPF, Members would need to plan for an increase in the delivery of housing, not least to ensure that the Ryedale Plan made provision for an additional 20% of housing land supply were this introduced as national policy in the final version. Changes to the national rural exception site policy also had significant implications for the Plan’s strategy for addressing housing needs in the smaller rural areas.

 

These issues were substantive and a response required careful consideration. It was considered that options as to how to proceed in this matter should be the subject of a future meeting. This would provide officers with the opportunity to discuss these issues with neighbouring authorities and to explore how approaches to managing growth in Plans already submitted for examination were being scrutinised by the Planning Inspectorate in the context of the NPPF growth agenda. 

 

It was moved by Councillor Raper and seconded by Councillor Knaggs that the following recommendation be approved.

 

(i)         That the Ryedale Plan be progressed in the light of the Draft NPPF, as proposed in paragraphs 8.14; 8.20; 8.23; 8.33 and 8.34 of the report.

 

An amendment, moved by Councillor Knaggs and seconded by Councillor Raper that the recommendation contained in paragraph 2.1 (i) of the report be amended to read:

 

In particular Officers are instructed to prepare urgently for consideration by Members

a.      A Housing Options paper dealing with the issues raised in paragraphs 8.33 and 8.34

b.      A revised timetable leading to a public enquiry into the Core Strategy.

 

was, upon being put to the vote, carried.

 

An amendment, moved by Councillor Clark and seconded by Councillor Woodward, that the recommendation contained in paragraph 2.1 (i) of the report be amended to read:

 

Delete the word “progress” and replace with “defer” and delete “as proposed in paragraphs 8.14, 8.20, 8.23, 8.33 and 8.34” and replace with “await publication of the NPPF after the consultation”.

 

was upon being put to the vote, lost.

 

Upon being put to the vote the substantive motion was carried.

 

A suggested response to specific questions posed as part of the consultation on the NPPF were included as Annex 1 of the report.

 

Members considered each question and response suggested by Officers.

 

It was moved by Councillor Raper and seconded by Councillor Knaggs that the following recommendation be approved:

 

(ii)        That the District Council’s response to the consultation as outlined at Annex 1 of the report be agreed and submitted to DCLG.

 

An amendment, moved by Councillor Clark and seconded by Councillor Woodward that the response to Question 10b be amended to include:

 

“Ryedale District Council is totally opposed to the removal of rural exception sites and we call upon Government to reinstate”

 

was, upon being put to the vote, carried.

 

An amendment, moved by Councillor Woodward and seconded by Councillor Clarkd that the response to Question 10b be amended to include:

 

“The NPPF should make allowances for Windfall Sites”

 

was, upon being put to the vote, carried.

 

An amendment, moved by Councillor Clark and seconded by Councillor Richardson that the recommendation contained in paragraph 2.1 (ii) of the report be amended to read:

 

Council calls upon the government to “pause” and reflect on its NPPF

a)    It is not possible to have growth in housing in isolated areas and to meet the NPPF objectives of reduced pollution and cuts in greenhouse gases

b)    It is not possible to increase the provision of affordable housing in the non-service villages by building more “market housing”

c)    There is still an urgent need for just affordable housing in many villages i.e. retain “exception sites”

d)    Many areas including Ryedale have a large number of planning applications granted but not yet built (5 years + supply). Developers are waiting until demand “picks up”. How does an easing/increasing of planning permissions increase the number of houses for sale? There are many “market houses” that have been for sale for more than a year. At present the demand is not there. RDC needs more resources to enable the building of more affordable housing

 

was, upon being put to the vote, carried.

 

Upon being put to the vote the substantive motion was carried.

 

Resolved

(i)            That the Ryedale Plan be progressed in the light of the Draft NPPF, as proposed in paragraphs 8.14; 8.20; 8.23; 8.33 and 8.34 of the report. In particular Officers are instructed to prepare urgently for consideration by Members

a.     A Housing Options paper dealing with the issues raised in paragraphs 8.33 and 8.34

b.     A revised timetable leading to a public enquiry into the Core Strategy.

(ii)       That the District Council’s response to the consultation as outlined at Annex 1 of the report be agreed and submitted to DCLG.

(iii)      Council calls upon the government to “pause” and reflect on its NPPF

a)        It is not possible to have growth in housing in isolated areas and to meet the NPPF objectives of reduced pollution and cuts in greenhouse gases

b)        It is not possible to increase the provision of affordable housing in the non-service villages by building more “market housing”

c)         There is still an urgent need for just affordable housing in many villages i.e. retain “exception sites”

d)        Many areas including Ryedale have a large number of planning applications granted but not yet built (5 years + supply). Developers are waiting until demand “picks up”. How does an easing/increasing of planning permissions increase the number of houses for sale? There are many “market houses” that have been for sale for more than a year. At present the demand is not there. RDC needs more resources to enable the building of more affordable housing

 

N.B.    Councillor Andrews requested that his vote against the substantive motion be recorded.

 

Councillor Andrews declared a personal interest in Item 10 as a member of the team who had worked on the Malton & Norton Neighbourhood Plan.