The written answer to my question at the January 2018 full Council meeting which unfortunately I did not get to ask in part due to the filibustering of certain members of the Cabinet, contained the sentences: “They (Inspectors) were well aware of the number of homes on sites that have been granted permission due to the lack of 5 year housing land supply. However, none of the modifications they have asked us to consult on involved changes to housing allocations.”
Can the Leader please tell us the specific dates when the Council informed the inspectors of these numbers, and provide the evidence of the communication?
Minutes:
The written answer to my question at the January 2018 full Council meeting which unfortunately I did not get to ask in part due to the filibustering of certain members of the Cabinet, contained the sentences: “They (Inspectors) were well aware of the number of homes on sites that have been granted permission due to the lack of 5 year housing land supply. However, none of the modifications they have asked us to consult on involved changes to housing allocations.”
Can the Leader please tell us the specific dates when the Council informed the inspectors of these numbers, and provide the evidence of the communication.
The Planning Portfolio Holder responded that the Local Plan Inspectors had been made aware on a number of occasions during the examination of the difficulties and impact that a lack of 5-year housing land supply was having on South Cambridgeshire and its communities. The Council had asked a number of times for an early view from the Inspectors on the proposed joint housing trajectory with Cambridge which would have given control back to the Council, but the Inspectors had said they could not do so because of the inter-connections with the overall development strategy.
Some specific examples of how the Council had made the Inspectors aware of the impacts of 5-year housing land supply were:
1. The Council’s written statement to examination Matter SC1 Strategy for the Rural Area, published in May 2017 on the Council’s website, had provided information at paragraphs 13 and 14 on the housing supply in the rural area, and the impact of 5 year supply planning application decisions. Maps showing omission sites with permission had also been included.
2. At several of the Matter SC1 hearings held 6-15 June 2017, which had dealt with omission sites that objectors were arguing should be allocated in the Local Plan, officers’ oral evidence to the Inspectors at several hearings was that the Council considered the Local Plan sound as submitted, but they made the point robustly that even if the Inspectors took the view that further allocations were required in the rural area, 1990 dwellings had by then been granted permission or resolved to grant permission as a result of a lack of a 5-year housing land supply and no further allocations needed to be made.
3. The Council had also written to the Inspectors in January 2017 to update them on the resolution to grant planning permission for Cambourne West, at a scale larger than identified in the local plan, which had been published as reference document RD/Gen/380 in the examination library.
4. Annual Monitoring Reports, which included the housing trajectories, had been made part of the Examination documents during the examination, published in the examination library. These had been referenced in a number of statements.
5. Most recently the latest housing trajectory had been provided to the Inspectors on 27 November 2017 alongside an updated land supply situation in working correspondence with the Inspectors on proposed modifications relating to 5 year land supply. These had been published on 20 December 2017 as reference documents RD/GEN/550 and RD/AD/500 in the examination library.
Following a request from Councillor Hawkins, the Planning Portfolio Holder agreed to provide the above response to all Members in writing.
By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Hawkins noted that over 5,000 approvals had been given as 5 year housing land supply sites and, given that the Bourn Airfield development proposal provided for 3,500 homes, asked whether the Planning Portfolio Holder considered that the development was now surplus to requirements.
The Planning Portfolio Holder responded that this was not his decision and would be down to the Inspector. The examination had now finished and the conclusions of the Inspector were awaited.