At its meeting on 9 November 2023, the Executive Committee considered the Tewkesbury Interim Housing Position Statement and RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL that it be APPROVED and published to explain the Council’s approach to decision-making on planning applications involving the provision of housing; and that authority be delegated to the Associate Director: Planning, in consultation with the Lead Member for Built Environment, to make any necessary minor amendments and corrections to the document prior to publication.

67.13        At its meeting on 9 November 2023, the Executive Committee considered the Tewkesbury Interim Housing Position Statement and recommended to Council that it be approved and published to explain the Council’s approach to decision-making on planning applications involving the provision of housing and that authority be delegated to the Associate Director: Planning, in consultation with the Lead Member for Built Environment, to make any necessary minor amendments and corrections to the document prior to publication.

67.14        The report which was considered by the Executive Committee had been circulated with the Agenda for the current meeting at Pages No. 48-60.

67.15        In proposing the recommendation of the Executive Committee, the Lead Member for Built Environment advised that this Agenda item was in response to the recent Planning Inspectorate appeal decisions that confirmed Tewkesbury Borough Council was now unable to demonstrate a five year housing land supply.  Members had previously received informal briefings on this issue, including discussing the consequences of applying the “tilted balance” to planning decisions on housing applications, in line with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) rules; however, this was a highly technical area and one which often gave rise to confusion and concern amongst communities, members of the public and even some developers.  The situation was often mischaracterised as one where the local plan policies were out of date and planning permissions for housing must be granted but the truth was much more measured. The NPPF certainly introduced a presumption in favour of granting sustainable development for many - although not all - housing applications as a result of the shortfall.  This meant that policies on matters such as settlement boundaries were to be treated as out-of-date and the overall outcome must be that more approvals were given in order to generate the deliverable sites to make up the shortfall.  Nevertheless, the starting point for making decisions was the policies in the development plan, many of which remained fully up to date. In judging whether in an individual case the adverse impacts would “significantly and demonstrably” outweigh the benefits, it was still necessary to consider the Joint Core Strategy, Tewkesbury Borough Plan and relevant Neighbourhood Development Plan policies which were an important part of that balancing exercise.  This meant looking carefully at important matters such as highway safety, unneighbourly amenity impacts, design and layout, accessibility, harm to valued landscapes and so on.  With all this in mind, it was considered it would be helpful to publish an Interim Housing Position Statement clarifying the position in some detail, and this was set out at Appendix 1 to the report.  One of its purposes was to confirm there was a housing shortfall, and to acknowledge the need to remedy that, but it also highlighted the types of location and housing schemes which were more likely to be considered acceptable by the Council, and by appeal Inspectors, in making up the shortfall under the tilted balance.  The document also pointed to actions the Council could take, and encourage others to take, in approving and building out suitable housing schemes as quickly and effectively as possible, for example, encouraging early engagement with Parish Councils and seeking pre-application advice from Planning Officers as well as considering attaching conditions to planning permissions requiring development to be commenced more quickly than the standard timescales.  It was important to be clear that the document was not in any way new “policy”; instead, it succinctly clarified the existing policy and practice and provided reassurance to communities that good quality development remained the expected standard at all times.  The Executive Committee had considered this matter on 9 November 2023 and recommended to Council that the document be approved and published.  As it was not policy, formal public consultation was not necessary; however, a briefing for Town and Parish Councils, chaired by the Leader of the Council, had been convened following the Executive Committee meeting which had been well attended and included representatives from Tewkesbury Town Council and 14 Parish Councils.  A Teams briefing had also been held for Tewkesbury Borough Councillors on 14 November 2023.  In terms of the main points raised at the Town and Parish Council briefing, the overall sentiment was concern that the five year housing land supply shortage had arisen in the first place, which many felt left local communities vulnerable to speculative development, and that every effort should be made to prepare a local plan with up-to-date housing figures and allocations as quickly as possible.  Notwithstanding these concerns, there was general support for the preparation of the Interim Housing Position Statement to the extent that it reaffirmed the importance of good planning principles. The importance of the local planning authority keeping Town and Parish Councils updated on the housing land supply position in the future was also highlighted.  Specific concerns were raised that ‘deliverable’ sites were likely to be smaller and located on the edges of villages which had already seen applications for residential development granted, especially on appeal.  In particular, a request was made for an interim policy which sought to place a numeric cap on growth in individual settlements.  Officers had advised that an interim policy setting arbitrary limits would not be supported by national planning policies and would not carry meaningful weight outside the development plan process; that the Interim Housing Position Statement would be the best way to prioritise suitable housing developments in restoring supply, factoring in any adverse effects of development - in some cases, this would almost certainly involve the early development of some sites which would otherwise have been allocated in a local plan in any event; nonetheless, preparation of the Cheltenham, Gloucester and Tewkesbury Strategic and Local Plan (SLP) was a priority to which additional resources had been allocated; adoption of the SLP would not be a pre-requisite for restoration of a five year supply shortfall – this would be achieved through the grant of appropriate planning permissions; and, sites only contributed to five year supply if they were realistically ‘deliverable’ according to the national planning rules - longer term strategic sites, such as the Tewkesbury Garden Town, would be unlikely to be the main source of remedying the immediate housing shortfall.  Some Parish Councils had suggested the establishment of a Service Village Forum in order to be kept up to date and enable ongoing liaison between relevant parishes and the Leader of the Council agreed that would be investigated.  More generally, other planning issues were raised and discussed around planning in Tewkesbury Borough including, amongst others, neighbourhood planning, historic appeal decisions and the Joint Core Strategy process.  In seconding the report, the Leader of the Council, as Chair of the Executive Committee, thanked Officers for producing the Interim Housing Position Statement and pointed out this was not a requirement but was something they had recommended in light of the current five year housing land supply position in terms of providing clarity for residents and those submitting planning applications.

67.16        A Member noted that the report referenced a 3.24 year housing land supply and he sought clarification as to what that meant in terms of numbers and how many were needed for a five year supply.  In response, the Interim Planning Policy Manager advised that housing land supply figures were deceptively complex and it would be unhelpful to talk about speculative numbers but the Council published an annual report on its housing land supply position which included the various commitments, the most recent of which was dated 1 April 2023 and was available on the Council’s website.  The authority had now been moved to the government’s standard method for calculating annual housing land supply requirements – the annual supply in the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) was in the order of 495 houses whereas the standard method was somewhat higher at around 570. 

67.17        Another Member indicated that the Council had been given very different figures regarding its housing land supply in the past – at one point Members had been told there was a supply of almost six years.  Page No. 51, Paragraph 5.1 of the report stated that the Interim Housing Position Statement would be subject to periodic monitoring at least annually and she asked how that assessment would be carried out and at what point a house was considered to have been delivered.  She also questioned whether an annual assessment was sufficient as she felt the Planning Committee in particular would require this information on a more regular basis.  In response, the Interim Planning Policy Manager reiterated that there were complex judgements involved in calculating the five year housing land supply and the exercise was subject to constant scrutiny and criticism by applicants.  For Tewkesbury Borough Council, and Cheltenham Borough and Gloucester City Councils, the nature of the JCS and fact there were cross-boundary supply issues, when the plan was five years old and the government required that calculations be moved to the standard method, questions had been raised to which there was no clear answer - the Council had taken legal advice in relation to that which had been contested which was why at one point it had rightly been claimed there was a housing land supply in the region of six years but the Inspector had come to a different view.  He could not emphasise enough what an enormous effort was involved in relation to the annual monitoring exercise which was a snapshot in time to understand at that point what commitments had been made in terms of unimplemented planning permissions for housing and, compared to the previous period, the number of houses which had been completed or commenced in terms of being under construction.  This involved looking at Council Tax or Building Control records but, to a large extent, was reliant on people physically going out to count them.  This information was collated via the Uniform system and was used to take a view on which of the sites had not yet been built out but were likely, under the government definition of deliverable housing, of having a realistic prospect of being built out within the coming five years.  Again, this was a judgement, but Officers did draw on the submission of applicants or prospective developers’ stated intentions.  The position was only accurate at the time it was calculated – it was not simply a case of including any new planning permissions granted to add to the supply picture as that would not reflect those which had expired or where the commitment was no longer there.  On that basis, an annual assessment was reasonable and manageable; whilst it was possible to give indicative figures in terms of planning permissions being granted and decisions being made by Planning Committee to get an idea as to whether it was going in the right direction, it would not be possible to give definite updated numbers.  The Member noted that reference had been made to using Council Tax records for the assessment but she indicated this would only be relevant once people had moved and did not reflect those houses which had been completed but not sold.  She asked if there was a target date in mind for when a five year housing land supply could be expected.  In response, the Chief Executive advised that consideration was being given as to what meaningful information could be taken to Planning Committee – this would not be a running total but would give a sense of the direction of travel which would be helpful to Members.  In terms of the target date, whilst work could be done in respect of the local plan when sites were identified, the rest was largely outside of the Council’s control and in the hands of developers.

67.18        A Member asked what was being done to provide assistance with Neighbourhood Development Plans (NDP) which were out of date given that there was a fallback position for a three year housing land supply to be applicable when NDPs met certain criteria.  In response, the Associate Director: Planning advised that the Member was correct in that, if NDPs were in place, up-to-date and allocated land for housing development then a three year housing land supply applied; however, many NDPs did not directly allocate land for housing.  Local planning authorities had a duty to support Town and Parish Councils in the preparation of NDPs and that must be done within the context of preparing a new SLP, which was a key tool for ensuing that a five year housing land supply could be demonstrated on an ongoing basis, so it would be about supporting their endeavours and advising where it was possible to do so.  In terms of planning reforms, the government had consulted on proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework this time last year and had received over 11,000 responses which had certainly had a bearing on how quickly any changes would be made.  If and when the changes came into effect, they would have a material bearing on how all Councils interpreted housing land supply.  Local planning authorities would be able to take account of developers’ previous track records when determining whether to grant planning permission; however, this was problematic as permission was granted for the land, not the applicant, so that would need to be considered in more detail.  He indicated that developers’ plans could change as a result of macro and micro economic conditions and it was perfectly legitimate for developers to say they were intending to do something one week and change their mind the next so it was important to be sensitive to the fact that would continue to happen.  Overall, whilst the government was looking to redress the balance, there would continue to be a lot of power and influence within the development industry.

67.19        In response to a query regarding how the lack of a five year housing land supply impacted planning applications going to appeal, the Associate Director: Planning advised that, if planning permission was refused and the application went to appeal, the appellant had the opportunity to set out their case as to why planning permission should be granted against the decision of the local planning authority.  Whilst housing land supply did not have to be a key topic of discussion at major housing appeals, it was often cited by the appellant as being highly material to their case to warrant permission being granted even when the Council accepted they did not have a five year housing land supply.  The appellant would often challenge the position as being worse than reported therefore making the argument greater than the Council considered it to be. 

67.20        A Member recognised the need for the Interim Housing Position Statement document and that it was not changing policy; however, there was very little mentioned of climate and nature in comparison to the previous Agenda Item aside from a reference in the final bullet point at Page No. 58, Paragraph 3.7 of the report.  The Planning Committee was having to permit large housing developments which were dependent on gas for energy and he felt that more could be done in that regard.  The Lead Member for Built Environment felt that sustainability ran though the statement so this had been addressed to some extent.  The Interim Planning Policy Manager was grateful for the recognition that the document was not intending to introduce new policy, in particular, not all criteria at Paragraph 3.7 of the report must be accorded to.  He agreed that climate change in the wider sense was addressed in many places, including encouraging means of travel other than the private motor car which was enshrined within the National Planning Policy Framework and development plan policies.  Bullet point 12 related to energy performance in the construction phase as opposed to the operation of the development itself but could be amended as part of the delegation.

67.21        The Leader of the Council indicated that houses were classed as having been delivered when they were watertight which was a labour intensive measure and Officers were considering whether there was a more efficient approach that could be taken which could be monitored within the organisation to reduce reliance on developers; this would skew the first set of data but monitoring would then be able to be done more quickly.  He agreed with the points that had been raised regarding the importance of NDPs and the authority could do more to support Town and Parish Councils in ensuring these were up-to-date.  There had been a lot of understandable frustration among Town and Parish Councils at the briefing and he was keen to start the process of greater engagement, including considering establishing a partner forum.  The Interim Housing Position Statement was not a solution intended to fix everything but Officers felt it was necessary to acknowledge the housing land supply position and set out what this meant for residents, developers and the Council’s own Officers to ensure a consistent approach to development.

67.22        During the debate which ensued, a Member indicated that he supported the Interim Housing Position Statement but had raised concern at the Executive Committee meeting regarding how this would be monitored and felt this needed to be done with more regularity.  Without a five year housing land supply, the titled balance was engaged and there was a presumption in favour of sustainable development; the Council needed to get out of this position and frequent monitoring was necessary to establish when that would be the case.  He recognised this would be resource intensive but did not feel that would be wasted – more regular monitoring with a running total would be better than coming from a standing position at an annual review.  He did not expect figures to two decimal places, rather an understanding of the direction of travel; it was particularly vital that Planning Committee was aware of the position when determining applications.  He asked for the support of other Members given the importance of getting out of the titled balance position.  The Lead Member for Built Environment understood the point being made but felt it was necessary to bear in mind the significant pressure Officers were under already and lack of resources was a reality which must be taken into consideration.  Another Member supported the document and felt that the fundamental issue was that Paragraph 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework contained three strands of sustainable development – economic, social and environmental.  Officers had dealt with the economic and environmental element but she did not feel that social aspects had been taken into account in terms of villages being hit by enormous amounts of development and how that impacted residents.  As an intrinsic part of planning policy, she felt that something needed to be included around the social objective and proposed an amendment on that basis which was duly seconded.  The Leader of the Council indicated that he was not unsympathetic to an amendment of that nature but clarification would be needed on the wording.  The Mayor agreed there would be a short adjournment to allow discussion to take place in that regard.

The meeting adjourned at 7:55pm.

The meeting reconvened at 8:05pm with the same Members present.

67.23        The Lead Member for Built Environment advised that Officers were satisfied that the matter being considered in the amendment was capable of being dealt with via the delegated authority being sought as part of the motion, therefore an amendment was not necessary.  The proposer and seconder of the amendment confirmed they were happy to withdraw the amendment on that basis.  Another Member proposed an amendment to Page No. 55, Paragraph 1.1 of the report to add a sentence to state that “The supply figures will be monitored on a quarterly basis and reported to the Planning and Executive Committees”.  This amendment was duly seconded.  In debating the amendment, a Member raised concern it was unachievable; as a previous Lead Member for Built Environment, she was aware of the enormous effort required by Officers to calculate the figures and she questioned whether they would be accurate and withstand testing at appeal.  The Leader of the Council indicated that the Chief Executive had given assurances that greater monitoring was being investigated in terms of giving an indication of travel and, whilst it was desirable to have a quarterly update on the housing land supply status, that was not realistic based on current resources required and there would be financial implications associated with any additional resources needed.  The Deputy Leader of the Council reiterated these points and felt that the Planning department had recently made headway in terms of addressing the backlog of planning applications and issuing decisions and she was concerned that taking resources away from that would result in a deterioration of that performance.  The Lead Member for Built Environment indicated that an alternative option could be looking into the potential of introducing Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) which could be monitored via the Performance Tracker.  Another Member indicated that she would welcome a discussion by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee as to whether that would be feasible; however, she could not support the amendment.

67.24        Upon being put to the vote, the amendment was lost.  The substantive motion was subsequently put to the vote and it was

RESOLVED          1. That the Interim Housing Position Statement be APPROVED and published to explain the Council’s approach to decision-making on planning applications involving the provision of housing.

2. That authority be delegated to the Associate Director: Planning, in consultation with the Lead Member for Built Environment, to make any necessary minor amendments and corrections to the document prior to publication.