Agenda item

Adoption of The Northumberland Local Plan (2016 - 2036)

To present the Inspectors’ Report into the independent examination of the Northumberland Local Plan and recommend that Council approve the adoption of the Northumberland Local Plan (2016-2036), including the Policies Map, as amended by main modifications and additional changes, following its Independent Examination by the Planning Inspectors appointed by the Secretary of State.

Link to Appendix 2 – Policies Maps

https://gbr01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.northumberland.gov.uk%2FNorthumberlandCountyCouncil%2Fmedia%2FPlanning-and-Building%2Fplanning%2520policy%2FLocal%2520Plan%2FNorthumberland-Local-Plan-Policies-Map-Adopted-Version-A3-low-resolution.pdf&data=04%7C01%7CKaron.Hadfield%40northumberland.gov.uk%7C170894e8e4b64f9a80ca08da0c0ba890%7Cbb13a9de829042f0a980dc3bdfe70f40%7C0%7C0%7C637835541447982789%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=8GJFPXVfrcdkrIbgNLd5nS80DcJvoEWYxhs%2BgwmGUdA%3D&reserved=0

Adoption of The Northumberland Local Plan (2016 - 2036)

The report presented the Inspectors’ Report into the independent examination of the Northumberland Local Plan and recommended that Council approve the adoption of the Northumberland Local Plan (2016-2036), including the Policies Map, as amended by main modifications and additional changes, following its Independent Examination by the Planning Inspectors appointed by the Secretary of State.

Mr Murfin made a presentation to members on the key points of the report.

The Leader commented this was a testament to the hard work of officers and the member working group. It had been a hard decision to say in 2017 that the Core Strategy was not fit for purpose, but it had been clear that it was important to have the right number of houses in the right places, and that it was important to encourage industry to locate in the County. The new Local Plan provided clarity on this and he commended it to members.

A number of questions were raised by members including:-

•         Councillor Hill asked for further detail on what might be regarded as the more controversial parts of the Plan. Mr Murfin referred to the elements which had previously been negotiated through the S106 process on an individual basis. The entire approach to growth had been viability tested at the Plan level and the Government agreed that the private sector should be able to deliver on the basis of what was contained in the Plan. This had meant difficult decisions on affordable housing levels which had been set at variable levels across the County and this had implications for developments progressing. In areas where by Parish the residencies were 20% and above non primary residences, then any new developments would be for primary residences only. Community led housing schemes could result in differences of opinion in some communities.

•         Regarding employment land, Councillor Robinson asked if new areas would be identified or if existing areas would be expanded, particularly for the south east. Mr Murfin replied that officers needed to plan for choice, churn and mix in employment land designation to meet different types of need. A broad range of land had therefore been allowed for, including the unusual step of taking some green belt land. As further investments came along, there may be a need to release further land.

•         Councillor Swinburn asked about the effect of the Local Plan on existing or emerging neighbourhood plans and how they would fit together. Mr Murfin advised that the “first generation” of neighbourhood plans were a reflection of the out-of-date district local plans. As the work on the Local Plan had moved forward, the newer neighbourhood plans were much more slimmed down and focussed only on the issues which were of concern to that local community. In view of this, the older plans would probably need a fundamental refresh, but the newer plans would likely be fit for purpose.

•         Councillor Murphy asked what powers the Local Plan gave the Authority to influence the regional design and style of new estates which she felt had been lost. Mr Murfin replied that there were overarching policies in the plan about improving design. At the Parish level, design guides would be prepared which would set out what was meant by the local quality.

•         Councillor Dodd asked whether the five-year review of the Plan would begin in May. Mr Murfin confirmed that there was a statutory requirement to review the Plan every five years and there were at least two issues already which needed to be addressed. Issues which were currently happening such as the British Volt development and the Northumberland Line needed to be incorporated into the review.

•         Councillor Reid asked whether the Plan could be started from 2022 instead of 2016. He also asked whether there were any plans to revisit matters which had been unpopular but which had been agreed in the absence of having a Local Plan in place. Mr Murfin advised that once permission had been granted then the only way to change that would be to rescind that decision, and the day the decision was made, the application had to be in accordance with the Plan in force at the time.  Any adoption of a Local Plan involved a timeframe that was partially retrospective and the plan had been evaluated in terms of needs and costings for 2016-2036 so it could not be changed.

•         Councillor Dale commented that the main modifications were not easy to read and that clarity was needed for town and parish councils for their neighbourhood plans and the green belt in the form of further guidance.  She also asked if enough employment land was being identified for the skills which were needed.  Mr Murfin advised that new guidance, targets etc had been issued by the Government during the Plan’s consultation process and the main modifications had been agreed with the Inspector and were updates to reflect legislation as it came out and changes to the NPPF. He did not feel it was confusing and was there for clarity. When the Plan was published, the modifications would be included in it. A full training programme would be provided for NALC. The Plan was for growth, and the housing and employment offer were linked. The high housing figure would enable the Authority to respond to where the growth took place and to take a more strategic approach overall.

•         Councillor Robinson asked how S106 funding would work under the Local Plan. Mr Murfin replied that this would no longer be looked at on an application by application basis. The Government were keen to move to a tariff-based system for developer contributions. This could be modelled on the community infrastructure levy system which would provide 15% for town and parish councils, and 25% if they had a neighbourhood plan in place.  

The Leader proposed the report’s recommendations, seconded by Councillor Wearmouth.

•         Councillor Dickinson welcomed the report. The work of the team had been tremendous and showed what cross party work could achieve. The planning service had been very good at keeping people briefed and he felt there was a lot to be learned by officers from Mr Murfin and his team’s open style and transparency. He welcomed the figures on affordable housing and local allocation and sought reassurance that the Council would stand firm and not be pressured by developers to accept alternatives that were of less value. This was a good piece of work which had been achieved through cross party working and should be able to deliver on what it promised. He hoped this approach would continue.

•         Councillor Cessford welcomed the Plan which addressed the provision of new residential developments and recognised the need to improve the quality of jobs and skills and attract new businesses. The Plan used an ambitious, jobs led growth scenario to identify appropriate housing numbers for the period. If the last Plan hadn’t been withdrawn then green belt would have been decimated with 600-900 houses in the west end of Hexham alone built on the green belt. The Plan also made it clear that there were no exceptional circumstances to justify deletion of the green belt for residential developments and directly protected residential areas whilst still allowing for economic growth.

•         Councillor Oliver welcomed Councillor Dickinson’s comments and that the consensual approach had been recognised and praised. The Plan on the table in 2017 could have done serious damage to the County and he welcomed the change in approach through the Council since then. The Plan was ambitious for housing and jobs and evidence of this could be seen already in the south east. It also recognised the important role of tourism in the north and west of the County. It would improve the quality of development and the Authority needed to be robust in this in approving planning applications. The Plan gave members a clear set of uniform policies for application in its planning committees.

•         Councillor Jackson acknowledged that it had been a difficult decision to move from one Plan to another in 2017 and he commended the Council’s Strategic Planning team for all of their work on this. The previous plan had been a developers’ charter and would have had a radically detrimental effect on the whole of the County, with no plan for economic growth. At the same time, protection had to be provided for the environment. He felt that the Plan allowed for population growth with stretch targets on affordable housing and great opportunities for economic growth. 

•         Councillor Darwin spoke in support of the Plan which would provide many improvements for the County – protection of the green belt, support for tourism, and improvement for rural communities. The Plan’s soundness was a testament to the officers who had worked on it and he thanked them for their work.

•         Councillor Ball thanked Mr Murfin and his team for their work on the Plan and sought assurances that it would be treated as a live document to deal with issues such as the ageing population and changing employment market. Jobs in the rural areas and houses that local people could afford were also very important. She stressed that the green spaces in the south east of the County were just as important as those in the more rural areas.

•         Councillor Murphy asked what was meant by “affordable” housing because it meant different things to different people. There was also a need to look at social housing to ensure that all needs were being met in this area.

•         Councillor Reid welcomed the point that had been reached on the Local Plan but commented that this had been one of the most difficult things the Council had ever had to do. Joan Sanderson had kept this together and he paid tribute to her for that. The Plan would ensure that the Council got what it wanted when dealing with planning applications in future.

•         Councillor Dale welcomed the fact that all councillors would have one plan on which to base decisions in future. She also thanked Joan Sanderson and her team for their representation and support during the EIP hearings. She commented that there was a need to ensure going forward that small villages were sustainable and this could be achieved through neighbourhood plans.

•         Councillor Dodd hoped that the Plan would now make the climate change agenda easier to achieve.

The Leader thanked Joan Sanderson and the team for their work on the Local Plan and was very proud of the result.

RESOLVED that:-

(a)      the content of the Inspectors’ Report into the Examination of the Northumberland Local Plan (Appendix 3), together with the Schedule of Main Modifications appended to the Inspectors’ Report (Appendix 4) be noted;

(b)      Council adopts the Northumberland Local Plan (2016 – 2036) (Appendix 1), incorporating the Main Modifications as set out in the Schedule of Main Modifications appended to the Inspectors’ Report (Appendix 4) and the additional changes to the Local Plan (Appendix 5);

(c)      Council approves the adoption of the Northumberland Local Plan (2016 – 2036) (Appendix 1) to take effect from 31 March 2022;

(d)      Council adopts the Northumberland Local Plan (2016 – 2036) Policies Map (Appendix 2), incorporating the changes in the Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Northumberland Local Plan Policies Map June 2021 (Appendix 6), the Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Northumberland Local Plan Policies Map - Appendices, June 2021 (Appendix 7) and the additional changes to the Local Plan (Appendix 5);

(e)      Council approves the adoption of the Northumberland Local Plan (2016 – 2036) Policies Map (Appendix 2) to take effect from 31 March 2022;

(f)       Council agrees the revocation of the following development plan documents, to take effect from the 12 May 2022 (following the statutory six-week legal challenge period from the adoption date of the Northumberland Local Plan):

•         Alnwick Local Development Framework Core Strategy (October 2007)

•         Alnwick District Wide Local Plan (April 1997) – Saved Local Plan Policies (under the Secretary of State’s Direction, 31 August 2007)

•         Berwick -upon-Tweed Borough Local Plan (April 1999) - Saved Local Plan Policies (under the Secretary of State’s Direction, 31 August 2007)

•         Blyth Valley Local Development Framework Core Strategy (July 2007)

•         Blyth Valley Local Development Framework Development Control Policies DPD (September 2007)

•         Blyth Valley District Local Plan (May 1999) - Saved Local Plan Policies (under the Secretary of State’s Direction, 28 September 2007)

•         Castle Morpeth District Local Plan (February 2003) - Saved Local Plan Policies (under the Secretary of State’s Direction, 31 August 2007)

•         Tynedale Local Development Framework Core Strategy (October 2007)

•         Tynedale District Wide Local Plan (April 2000) - Saved Local Plan Policies (under the Secretary of State’s Direction, 31 August 2007)

•         Wansbeck District Local Plan (July 2007) - Saved Local Plan Policies (under the Secretary of State’s Direction, 22 April 2010)

•         Northumberland Minerals Local Plan (March 2000) - Saved Local Plan Policies (under the Secretary of State’s Direction, 31 August 2007)

•         Northumberland Waste Local Plan (December 2002) - Saved Local Plan Policies (under the Secretary of State’s Direction, 31 August 2007)

•         Northumberland County and National Park Joint Structure Plan First Alteration (February 2005) - Saved Policy S5 (Green Belt Extension).

(g)      Council agrees the revocation and downgrading of the Supplementary Planning Documents as set out in Appendix 8, to take effect from the 12 May 2022 (following the statutory six-week legal challenge period from the adoption date of the Northumberland Local Plan); 

(h)      Council notes the content of the Adoption Statement attached at Appendix 9 prepared in accordance with Regulation 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012);

(i)       Council approves the Sustainability Appraisal Post-Adoption Statement (Appendix 10); and

(j)       Council authorises the Interim Executive Director of Planning and Local Services, in consultation with Cabinet Member for Community Services, to make any additional necessary minor textual, graphical, presentational or layout amendments to the Northumberland Local Plan (2016-2036) (Appendix 1) and its Policies Map (Appendix 2) to finalise the Plan prior to publication.