Agenda item

In June 2025, Cabinet agreed to prepare a new Local Plan under the Government’s reformed plan-making system. The Government has now published the Regulations and guidance setting out the new process, which is intended to enable plans to be prepared and adopted within 30 months from Gateway 1. This report summarises the process and proposed timetable for preparing the new BCP Local Plan and seeks authorisation to undertake the Stage 1 (“Getting ready”) activities, together with delegated authority to progress the Plan through the prescribed Gateway stages. Cabinet decisions will remain for each formal consultation stage.

The Portfolio Holder for Communities and Partnerships presented a report on behalf of the Leader, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'A' to these Minutes in the Minute Book. The Board was informed that in June 2025, Cabinet agreed to prepare a new Local Plan under the Government’s reformed plan-making system. The Government has now published the Regulations and guidance setting out the new process, which is intended to enable plans to be prepared and adopted within 30 months from Gateway 1. The report summarised the process and proposed timetable for preparing the new BCP Local Plan and sought authorisation to undertake the Stage 1 (“Getting ready”) activities, together with delegated authority to progress the Plan through the prescribed Gateway stages. Cabinet would make decisions at each formal consultation stage.

The Board was informed that the previous Local Plan had been withdrawn, primarily due to issues relating to the duty to cooperate and housing need assessments. It was explained that the absence of an up-to-date Local Plan limits the Council’s ability to control development and increases exposure to speculative applications, particularly in the context of changes to national policy (e.g. “grey belt”). It was emphasised that the timeline is extremely challenging, with most work required within the first 18 months. A number of issues were raised during discussion of this item including:

·       Scoping Consultation - It was confirmed that the scoping consultation is a statutory requirement. Concerns were expressed that it may offer limited value due to constraints imposed by national policy and predefined frameworks.

·       Member Engagement - It was noted that opportunities for member involvement are limited within formal stages, placing significant importance on early engagement. The proposed working group was identified as a key mechanism for detailed member input. Concerns were raised that insufficient early engagement may lead to frustration and reduced influence at later stages.

·       Risks and Governance - Significant risks were identified, including potential changes in political leadership affecting direction mid?process;possibility of government intervention if the timetable is not met; delivery risks linked to viability constraints in housing development.It was recognised that new “gateway” review stages involving the Planning Inspectorate should reduce the likelihood of late-stage failure.

·       Viability and Delivery - Concerns were raised that policy aspirations may not translate into delivery due to viability issues, particularly in town centres. It was acknowledged that development economics favour greenfield sites, which may conflict with spatial and sustainability objectives.

·       Regional Planning (Devolution) - Concerns were expressed regarding potential future conflict with emerging regional spatial strategies under devolution arrangements. Officers advised that roles are expected to remain distinct, though it was acknowledged that uncertainty remains.

·       Stakeholder Engagement - Members highlighted the need for a broader stakeholder engagement strategy. It was considered insufficient to rely on responses from existing contacts. A strong emphasis was placed on ensuring inclusion of vulnerable groups and those in housing need, community organisations and smaller stakeholder groups and specific groups such as van-life communities and Gypsy and Traveller communities. It was suggested that the existing stakeholder database to be circulated to Members for review and expansion.

·       Consultation Methods - It was recommended that consultation approaches extend beyond standard surveys to include more inclusive and representative engagement methods.

·       Local Plan Working Group - Concerns were expressed regarding a lack of geographical balance across the conurbation, restrictions on substitutes, which were considered impractical and confidentiality requirements, particularly restrictions on sharing information within political groups. It was argued that excessive confidentiality may hinder transparency and effective communication. Additionally, concerns were raised that working groups should not be overly restrictive and should allow broader member participation where appropriate.

RESOLVED that the Overview and Scrutiny Board recommend to Cabinet:

1.     That further clarification be provided on the stakeholders who will be engaged with beyond the statutory consultees and that Ward members be encouraged to provide the details to officers of any organisations that they feel should be engaged with as stakeholders.

2.     That the Working Group Terms of reference be amended to allow the possibility for substitute members provided that group leaders or their nominated representative notify of the change at least 72 hours in advance of a meeting and provided that the substitute attend a briefing with relevant officers prior to the meeting.

3.     That a risk concerning the wider potential implications of devolution and local government reorganisation, e.g. changing consultees, be added to the risk register included within the Project Initiation Document

Voting: Nem. Con.

The meeting adjourned at 8.05pm and resumed at 8.15pm.