Agenda item

An opportunity for the Portfolio Holder’s to provide an update to the Panel on developments within their portfolio.

The Panel received an update on developments within the Planning and Economy Portfolio.

Cllr Geoff Blunden – Environment and Sustainability

It was noted that Cllr Blunden gave his apologies for the meeting.

Cllr Derek Tipp – Planning and Economy

The Portfolio Holder for Planning and Economy provided an update. The main points were as follows:

·       The Local Plan call for sites closed on 13^th December 2024 at which point there had been 150 submissions, ready for review by the Council. More sites were expected to come forward in the coming weeks, however it was explained that the Council were unlikely to be able to meet their housing need as calculated by the Government’s formula despite the 150 site submissions.

·       Following this, the Council’s next step in the Local Plan process would be preparing the Issues and Scope document which is due to be considered at the February Cabinet meeting where approval will be sought to consult with the wider stakeholders through February and March.

·       BCP Council’s Local Plan examination starts on 21^st January, and it was noted that they also faced challenges to meet their housing provision.

·       The Hampshire County Council Mineral Waste plan will go to public examination on the 4^th February. The Portfolio Holder reminded the Panel that this plan had also been considered by the Panel at a previous meeting.

·       The Portfolio Holder explained that he had written a letter to the Secretary of State for Housing at the beginning of the year, expressing his serious concerns about the revised National Planning Policy Framework. This was due to the high level of constraints on development and what impact this would have for the Council on them achieving their housing targets in the Plan Area. No response had been received so far.

·       On the Shared Prosperity Fund, last year’s total was £1.5m and the projects for that pot of money were nearing completion.

·       For 2024/2025 10 case studies for projects had been uploaded to the UK Shared Prosperity Fund and Rural England Prosperity Fund website.

·       For 2025-2026 the Council had been awarded £327,146 allocation of funding for these funds.

·       Recruitment was taking place for a new Economy development manager and Officer. The Portfolio Holder reported that there had been a pleasing number of applications for the roles and the recruitment process would be finalised in the coming days.

·       On building control, there was currently an audit by the building safety regulator taking place which was a standard process across the country following the Grenfell Tower tragedy.

·       It was explained that the Community Infrastructure Levy fund pot stood at £1m. This money would be used for capital funding of local projects. The Panel heard that 77 bids had been received in total and that if all of these bids were approved, their total costs would be around £3m. This demonstrated the popularity of the fund and, in order to decide which projects would receive an allocation, it was explained that a Council Task and Finish Group would meet at the end of the January to review all of the bids.

A member asked whether there would be any implications for NFDC in BCP Council’s Local Plan examination. The Portfolio Holder explained that it would be interesting to see what the inspector’s report says given that BCP Council were also facing challenges in meeting the calculated housing supply.

Following a question on Fawley Waterside, the Strategic Director of Place, Operations and Sustainability explained that the Council continued to be in contact with the Fawley Waterside Consortium. The planning application was withdrawn due to concerns over the viability of site to deliver housing. It was, however, expected that the promoters of the site to come forward with a new application. There was a clear ambition to develop the site however as a brownfield site there were some challenges to development for housing.

A member asked whether designated sites that had already obtained planning permission were included and to be considered in line with the government’s housing supply calculation? It was explained that the sites that had obtained planning consent were included as part of the Housing Delivery Action plan, however it was noted that these types of sites were in a minority within the District when compared to other Local Authority areas and that the Council were powerless to make landowners or developers fulfil the schemes that they had obtained planning for.