Agenda item

To consider an update report from the Local Plan Working Group on its work since the last update to the O&S Board.

Please note that this report outlines the Working Group’s consideration of the BCP Local Plan Issues and Options Consultation document, which is included on this agenda at Item 8 for consideration by the Board.

The Chairman asked the Chairman of the Local Plan Working Group to introduce the item and outline the work that the Group had undertaken since the last report made to the Board. The Chairman outlined the main recommendations from the report a copy of which had been circulated to Board members and a copy of which appears at Appendix ‘A’ to these minutes in the Minute Book.

The Chairman of the Group explained that they had undertaken a great deal of work in looking at the Local Plan - Issues and Options consultation document. A lot of the changes which the Working Group had suggested were additional or changes to words and short sentences, but it was notable that the document was improved and more aspirational in its outlook from that which the group were first looking at.

There were some more contentious and significant changes which were outlined in the report. The first of these was with regards to the description used in the document of ‘city region’. The working group had outlined a recommendation to the O&S board in its report that the word ‘city’ should be removed.

The Chairman of the Board read a statement on behalf of a member of the working group as set out below:

‘I am a member of the Local Plan working group.  I would like to highlight that I do not think this consultation puts the factual severity of the climate and ecological crisis into perspective for those that will be completing the consultation, and is therefore, in my opinion, misleading.  The working group did not receive direct professional advice from any sustainability experts during any of our meetings. I would like to propose that BCP council needs to create a new officer position that can oversee the climate and ecological complexities of creating a local plan to ensure that it legally fits within the UK Climate Emergency legislation.’

In response the Board was advised that there was an officer team with responsibility for this issue and they had been involved with the development of the consultation document. The Chairman suggested that the Working Group should have an opportunity to look at the Sustainability Appraisal scoping document prior to publication of the consultation. It was confirmed that this document was broader than just environmental and climate change issues but was included as a background document to the consultation. It had been consulted upon earlier this year with statutory bodies. The Chairman proposed that the Working Group also considered this document prior to the consultation publication.

Another member of the working group emphasised that it was very important for everybody in the whole of BCP to ensure that the consultation was right and that there was a strong need to wait for the Local Housing Needs Assessment before the consultation was published. There was a need and opportunity to look at this issue again as a working group.

The Portfolio Holder advised that he was in broad agreement with the Working Group’s second recommendation, although the exact wording would need to be agreed by Cabinet and officers to ensure that it was clear and lawful, but it would allow for an additional meeting of the working group prior to the publication of the consultation document. The Portfolio Holder commended the work undertaken by the Group. The Portfolio Holder advised that the Working Group’s other recommendation regarding the city region was slightly more controversial. The area was known by government as a city region and this definition did have some cross-party support and was part of the Big Plan but it was appreciated that there were very different views on this.

It was noted by members of the Board that a number of people were uncomfortable with the term city region and it did not mean that the Council should adopt it just because it was the terminology used by central government

A Board member questioned the timeline in procuring the Housing Needs Assessment which was commissioned on 8 June 2020 with Dorset Council. On 10 June 2021 a draft was produced and was currently subject to checking. Information on why it had taken this length of time and whether there would be time for the working group to assist in rewriting was requested. It was explained that there had been some delay in procuring it jointly and things had moved on with the challenge made to the ONS on the 2014 household projections which required further work to be done by the consultants. It was noted that the Assessment was more than just housing numbers but also to understand housing needs in terms of types of dwellings.  

The Portfolio Holder advised that the document set out broad views and the direction of travel. It was not about trying to meet a housing number but about the choices that needed to be made and seeking the public’s views on them to help inform the next step. It was expected that the amended document would include details on both sets of data and would present fully described options, including complete rationale on each of these. It was expected to be formulated with the support of the working group.

The Chairman thanked the Chairman and members of the Working Group for the report and the Planning Policy Manager and Portfolio Holder for their comments. The Board was advised that as the Working Group report related to the next item, that it would be considered first and the Board would then consider and vote on the recommendations from the Working Group.