Agenda item - The Exeter Plan: Publication

To consider the report of the Strategic Director for Place.

Agreed:

RESOLVED that:

(1) the publication of the Regulation 19 version of the Exeter Plan be approved for an eight-week period from 12 December 2024;

(2) delegated authority be granted to the Strategic Director for Place, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for City Development, to agree minor changes to the Regulation 19 Publication version of the Exeter Plan before it is published; and

(3) delegated authority be granted to the Strategic Director for Place, in consultation with Portfolio Holder for City Development, to agree a change to the publication date if required.

RECOMMENDED that Council:

(1) approves the submission of the Exeter Plan, policies map, associated documents, evidence base and Regulation 19 representations, to the Planning Inspectorate for Examination; and

(2) that delegated authority be granted to the Strategic Director for Place, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for City Development, to make minor changes to the Regulation 19 Publication version of the Exeter Plan and to submit these to the Planning Inspectorate for Examination.

Reason for Decision: As set out in the report.

The meeting was briefly paused during this item between 7pm and resumed at 7.08pm.

The Executive received the report which explained the progress made on the Exeter Plan (Local Plan) and sought approval to publish the Regulation 19 Publication version of the Plan in advance of its submission to the Planning Inspectorate. Exeter City Council had a statutory duty to prepare planning policy for the city as the Local Planning Authority and the Exeter Plan would replace the two existing principal development plan documents for the city if adopted.

During the presentation, particular reference was made to:-

· the Exeter Plan had been in production for four years, and had included three full public consultations;

· the plan presented was the regulation 19 version, which was effectively the final draft before submission to the planning inspectorate;

· in July 2024, the new government had announced a series of planning reforms, which would require the Council to plan for an additional 3,500 homes, requiring additional sites to be identified, which could result in starting the local plan work over and by publishing the Exeter Plan sooner, the Council would avoid this risk, whilst addressing the additional homes at a later date;

· since January 2024, the team had been assessing the consultation responses, gathering evidence and consulting Members, through Planning Member Working Groups and Scrutiny meetings;

· the plan was now at its final stage, and going forward could only receive formal representations related to the four tests of soundness criteria as set out in 8.26 of the report, and that the Council would need to submit the plan in the form it was published for consultation, together with consultation representations;

· the Exeter Plan would be submitted in June 2025 to the planning inspectorate, with examination expected to commence in November 2025 and adoption in 2026 (subject to Planning Inspectorate timeframes);

· some of the key policies that had changed included the affordable housing at policy H4 and on mixed and balanced communities. The plan retained the commitment to addressing viability challenges and delivering sustainable and affordable housing across the city;

· the affordable housing policy reflected both the received viability evidence and the updated housing needs assessment, given the differing costs between Brownfield and Green Field developments;

· evidence showed there was a need for a 50:50 split pf the affordable housing between social rent and affordable home ownership. The existing policy required 35% affordable housing across all sites with a split of 70:30 (70% for social rent including affordable rent and 30% affordable rent/shared ownership). The new policy retained the 35% on Greenfield sites, but proposed 15% on Brownfield sites;

· there was a proposal to introduce additional explanatory text as a minor amendment to the current version of the plan to highlight the intention to increase affordable housing delivery across the city;

· the Council-owned housing program was also seeking to deliver 500 Council homes by 2030 and would be working with partnerships including Homes England and housing associations to support additional affordable housing;

· the policy relating to balanced communities addressed the challenge of student housing, balancing the benefits of the university against potential impacts of developments;

· the plan was consistent with the key strategy policy (S1) which outlined the spatial strategy for the plan, focussing the majority of developments on Brownfield sites, protecting green spaces, reducing travel, and promoting active lifestyles;

· the policy had been strengthened to include additional details for citywide biodiversity, heritage and employment provisions;

· revisions to the plan had been developed from consultation responses, partnership discussions and Member discussions; and

· site allocations that had been removed for delivering housing included Marsh Barton, the Northgate area and Middlemore, whilst adding 18 mixed use or residential sites across the city. Some revisions to site allocations have also been made.

During the discussion, Executive Members raised the following points and questions:-

· thanks were made to the officers for the excellent work undertaken over a long period of time to bring the final version of the plan to Members;

· it was important that the Council had clear, reasonable and evidenced policies to direct development in the city toward Brownfield sites to address net zero and healthy lifestyle ambitions;

· the plan reflected the feelings of communities across the city but it was important to acknowledge that there were viability constraints;

· the plan could be reviewed over time to address market value changes;

· the Council could deliver affordable housing through the planning system and through partnerships and pursue other avenues for funding;

· there was an improvement in the plan for defining HMOs and overconcentration;

· could the high level of consultation that had taken place be explained?

· the detailed chapter on climate change was welcomed;

· could examples be provided where the Council was being proactive, rather than reactive to government policy and measures for tackling climate change?

· was there any scope in the plan to address improving transport in the city?

· what was the time period for the viability evidence?

· could an example be given of how partnership working has enabled the Council to achieve more affordable housing and making the percentages a reality?

· could clarification be given on the reference to the national transitional arrangements and if the report was accepted the current housing targets, would remain in place until 2040? and

· could Members change anything in the report if they desired and what would be the impact of doing so?

Councillor Mitchell as opposition group leader had submitted an advanced question as follows:-

· could the Leader offer clarity on the reference of 'a significant gap', as stated in the letter from the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government on 30th July 2024, referring to the plan and the new local housing figures. Could the Leader also inform the Executive whether any gaps exist between the Exeter housing projections in the new Exeter Local Plan and those that proposed by the Labour government?

The Leader in responding to the submitted question from Councillor Mitchell, explained that:-

· a significant gap was defined in the explanatory information which went alongside the national planning policy reforms consultation in the summer 2024 and was defined as over 200 dwellings per annum and the requirement for homes included in the Draft Exeter Plan was 642 per annum. The revised local housing requirement for Exeter, (as consulted in summer 2024), was 815 per annum, equating to a difference of 173 per year.

Councillor Mitchell in asking a supplementary question enquired on what assurances the council had received that the current proposal was acceptable and would not need to be reworked?

Councillors Jobson and Moore spoke on the item as opposition group leaders and raised the following points and questions:-

· given the regulation 19 plan was recommended for approval and that it would be of sync with the new National Planning Framework Policy, had legal advice being sought on any potential planning appeal?

· the current Council policy referred to housing and social rent housing. Was council housing not included because housing associations charged higher rents?

· the affordable housing policy had been changed since the last draft, notably the difference on the brownfield sites, who had made that decision?

· when the consultation begins, would all the evidence accompany it at that time, or would it be included for Council?

· welcomed the nature and water additions and that the inclusion of quality targets would be beneficial; and

· enquired on process for reports, with the forward plan indicating the matter was an Executive function, where there are also recommendations to Council.

The Leader advised that there were three resolved matters for the Executive and two recommendations for full Council to consider on 17 December.

The Portfolio Holder for City Development, advised the plan had been adjusted to

due to the viability evidence received, which had been carefully considered by officers. Options for leveraging funding to deliver affordable housing targets would be addressed.

In response to questions raised, the Strategic Director for Place, the Assistant Service Lead – Local Plan and Democratic Services Manager advised that:-

· it was standard practice to review policies within a five-year period, with a potential earlier review opportunity the planning inspector based on the uplift in housing numbers;

· consultations have involved multiple methods, including online consultation, ward exhibitions, community engagement and meetings with Councillors and community groups. The consultations had received a positive and high volume of response. Detailed figures of responses could be made available to Members;

· there were various elements in the plan which addressed climate change and sustainability but also in development strategy for reducing travel and lowering emissions;

· the plan had identified a number of local energy networks and a policy for working with Devon County Council as the transport authority to look at transport plans and bus service improvements;

· the viability time period presented data at the current most up to date time across a wide area, and can be subject to change;

· the plan would be submitted in June 2025, and there was still work to be done which would evolve the plan;

· all evidence would be provided to the inspector and was available online to be viewed alongside the plan. All new evidence would be included until the submission time; and

· the legal requirement for the forward plan was to include forthcoming Executive decisions. Exeter City Council, by way of being fully open and transparent also included forthcoming Council decisions, but it wasn’t a legal requirement to do so and therefore had no impact on the recommendations;

The Leader advised on the point raised about evidence being published alongside the draft had been clarified during the debate.

The Leader moved the recommendations, which were seconded by Councillor Wright, voted upon, and CARRIED unanimously.