Agenda item

Option 1: Endorse the content and the steps proposed for the continued preparation of the Draft Local Plan Documents

Option 2: Delay the endorsement and the next steps proposed for the continued preparation of the Draft Local Plan Documents whilst awaiting the outcome of other ongoing studies and resolutions to outstanding planning issues before progressing with a local plan

Advantages

The NPPF encourages local authorities to advance preparation of Local Plans in accordance with the principles established within the NPPF. The NPPF advises that plans may need to be revised to take into account the policies in the framework. This should be progressed as quickly as possible, either through a partial review or preparing a new Local Plan.  For a period of 12 months, which commenced in March 2012 decision makers may continue to give full weight to plans adopted since 2004, there after due weight will be given to existing plans in accordance to their degree of consistency with the NPPF; thus in order to exert local influence upon planning decisions the Council is advised to make speedy progress on preparing its own Local Plan. Publishing a draft Local Plan Document will be an important step in identifying solutions to meeting the district’s development needs over the next 15 years. Publishing the detailed documents in support of the  spatial principles established in the Core Strategy  means that the Council will be in stronger position to influence how and where growth occurs in the district and can secure better outcomes from the implementation of development  proposals.

Delay means that more time is available to further investigate detailed solutions to issues such as traffic management before identifying sites in the plan. The ability to describe such solutions would mean that it would be easier to justify the plan’s proposals, particularly in south Lancaster, to a potentially sceptical and unsupportive local community.

Disadvantages

Identifying the sites which the Council wishes to direct development to may trigger planning applications in relation to both the sites which are identified and the sites which are not identified.

Greater delay will mean that there is a longer period when an up-to-date Local Plan is not in place, thus the Council will find it increasingly difficult to defend its planning decisions.  Delay also means that the local evidence base and the large range of studies which support the current draft policies will become out of date and would need to be undertaken again: this may include retailing studies, flood risk studies; housing needs, affordable housing viability studies, development viability appraisals, and open space & recreation studies. This would involve significant time, additional costs and the use of staff limited resources to re-establish an up-to-date evidence base position.

Risks

The proposed approach, which suggests that sites are indentified through this preferred options  stage when investigative work has still to be undertaken, may encourage planning applications before satisfactory solutions are identified to development implications, particularly traffic management in south Lancaster. Planning Applications may therefore be submitted in advance of a decision on implementing CIL. The proposed approach suggests meeting a reduced housing requirement on the basis of assumptions about realistic levels of delivery. This may risk the Land Allocations Plan being found unsound on the basis that it does not provide sufficient opportunity for housing development to meet the locally evidenced requirement.  This would delay the overall process of identifying sites and lead to a longer period when a local plan is in place.

Delay means the Council is exposed to a longer period at  of risk when it is exposed to having to determine planning proposals without up to date policies in place, this increases the prospects of loss at appeal and hence development which may not best accord with the community’s aspirations.