The Group Manager Development presented a report on behalf of the Corporate Director – Communities, which concerned the response to the letters from the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs - Lesley Griffiths AM received on the 13 December 2017, regarding her invitation to undertake Joint Local Development Plans (LDP) and a regional Strategic Development Plan (SDP).

In respect of Joint Local Plans, the letter invited the Council to give serious consideration to preparing a joint plan with RCT and Caerphilly.  The reasoning behind this request, related primarily to better resourcing opportunities, greater collaboration and a more joined up planning regime although no evidence has been submitted to support this view.

He added that the letter concerning the SDP similarly invited local planning authorities to prepare strategic plans on the 3 regional footprints, which in Bridgend’s case would align with the Cardiff Capital Region area. The SDP would be separate tier of development plan that will sit above the LDP.  Once in place an SDP would allow for ‘light-touch’ LDPs to be produced.

The Cabinet Secretary had invited positive responses to the invitation to be submitted by 28th February 2018. Until such time Welsh Government (WG) will not agree to the progression of any plan individually.  WG has the power to direct Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) to produce development plans including joint plans.

Bridgend had always had consistent development plan coverage and these have been successful in delivering growth.

The receipt of these letters was quite unexpected and their content has far-reaching implications for LPAs in the autonomous production of development plans, and would seem to diverge from the direction of travel for development as discussed with WG officials up until this point.

The Group Manager Development advised that whilst there is some agreement with the Cabinet Secretary’s points expressed in the letters i.e. that the planning system is best placed to deliver the strategic and local land use vision for both the region and County Borough, and to ensure the right development is carried out in the right place, there is concern about the joint LDP approach, which is covered in detail in the report and attached appendices. 

The letters suggest that LPAs would not be allowed to progress with their own LDP until timing of the letters has significant implications for Bridgend given the imperative to start work immediately on a Review of its LDP which will expire in 2021.  There is a risk that a joint plan would not be delivered by this date resulting in a ‘policy vacuum’.  An up-to-date development plan is important to guide sustainable development and promote investment opportunities and prevent inappropriate development. 

In respect of the report, the following options are being considered:-

1.        Preparation of a SDP only with no individual reviews of our existing LDP until the SDP is adopted.

2.        Individual Review of the LDP whilst simultaneously working collaboratively on the SDP with the region.

3.        Collaboration ‘Plus’ with an individual review of Bridgend’s LDP whilst working simultaneously with RCT (and other LPAs) to prepare a joint evidence base and also with the region to prepare a SDP. 

4.        A Joint LDP with RCT and Caerphilly whilst simultaneously working collaborating with the region to prepare a SDP.

5.        A Joint LDP with just RCT whilst simultaneously working collaboratively with the region to prepare a SDP.

Each of these options were considered in detail in the report, with the most favourable options being 2 and 3. Option 3 – Collaboration ‘Plus’ is likely to be the most cost effective and expedient, with a replacement LDP in place by the critical date of 2021.

However, there are considerable risks to Bridgend if, as under Option 1 it  was to forego preparation of an LDP, given that there would be a likely policy vacuum beyond 2021 up until the time the SDP is adopted and work can progress in earnest on light touch LDP.

Similarly options 4 and 5 i.e. Joint LDPs offered the highest level of risk both in terms of delivery and maintaining consistent plan coverage.

The report details why it was so important for Bridgend to maintain plan coverage, given the lack of a 5 year land supply and a need to identify new sites.  A replacement plan would guide development to the right locations and as a Local Planning Authority we would not be dictated to by the development industry, or suffer from ‘planning by appeal’, which could undermine any future development strategy for Bridgend and even the future direction of a SDP. 

The Group Manager Development further added, that it is also the view of Officers that it is the role of the SDP to effectively manage cross boundary issues, which is cited by the Cabinet Secretary as one of the primary reasons for undertaking joint plans rather than the function of sub-regional joint LDPs.

The approach advocated by the Cabinet Secretary would result in a number of sub- regional Joint LDPs across the region, but which would also exclude Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan. (their plans are recently adopted) and Merthyr (who are already underway with their LDP review). 

In terms of the SDP, there are clear economic and social advantages to having a regional plan in place in order to effectively manage and deliver the aims and aspirations of the Cardiff Capital region (CCR), of which Bridgend were a part of. It is imperative therefore that Bridgend contributes to the SDP and forms part of this strategic planning process.

Bridgend Officers have been in discussion with colleagues in RCT, Caerphilly and within the region. There is a consensus at Officer level that there although there is widespread support to produce a SDP, there are considerable risks and complications and no appetite to progress Joint LDPs. 

Also, Leaders across the region considered the Cabinet Secretary’s letters and have taken the view that there is a general consensus to prepare a SDP, but that Joint LDP would be a distraction from this important work and LPAs should be allowed to progress with individual LDPs if considered necessary.  This view was echoed by the WLGA Executive Board.

In summary, it was considered that here is no advantage in terms of planning outcomes to pursue a joint LDP with RCT and Caerphilly.  Matters of resource management can still be addressed by working collaboratively with neighbours and sharing costs without embarking on a formal joint plan.   Regional and cross boundary matters are best addressed by way of an SDP although LPAs should be allowed to progress with their own LDPs if there is a compelling need.

This view was endorsed by the WLGA, CCR Leaders and the professional Planning Officers both regionally and Wales wide.

A Member confirmed that there had only been one round of LDPs across Wales, and as recent motions NDM6635 and NDM 6626 passed unanimously in the National Assembly demonstrate, there are issues with new developments that must be addressed in any future LDP such as the tendency for new developments to lie unfinished for several years, home buyers being trapped by ever increasing maintenance charges, and the mismatch between planned developments and the public services required to make those sustainable.

He felt it would be better to keep the LDP in house for now, and for it to be written and influenced by the people who are in the best position to have learned those lessons and know what has worked and what has not.

Many of the concerns across Wales have stemmed from the fact that since the financial crash, the housing market is now dominated by even fewer firms that have a strong position in the market.

He added that these large firms have been lobbying for fewer restrictions on planning, cheaper S106 agreements, and larger developments that price out the smaller developments. There was also substantial concerns over the quality of new builds as a result that more competition in the market would address if we had an LDP that divided developments into more manageable chunks that small developers could bid for. Keeping an LDP in-house enabled more influence reflecting the needs of Bridgend

The Cabinet Member – Communities advised that in his opinion there were limited benefits for Bridgend if there was put in place a regional LDP with neighbouring authorities, particularly as proposals for land use for LDP’s covering these Authorities would differ from that of BCBC’s. He added that Caerphilly CBC did not have an LDP in place. He added that there would be other implications also, which could result in a policy vacuum existing in any such new Plan. He added however, that he considered an SDP was a better vehicle that would work, for the reasons explained in the report.

The Leader concluded debate on this item, by advising that he could see that there was support for the recommendations of the report from all political groups, and he was encouraged to see that Bridgend were speaking with One Voice, and that all local authorities in SE Wales had the same view with regard to the SDP and LDP proposals.

RESOLVED:             That Council:

(1)  Approved Bridgend County Borough Council’s formal response to the Cabinet Secretary (Appendix 1), and noted the contents of the Options appraisal attached at Appendix 5 to the report

(2)  Endorsed the Cardiff Capital Joint Cabinet and WLGA responses to the Cabinet Secretary (Appendices 2 and 3 to the report.)

(3)  Authorised Officers of the Council to proceed with the preparation of the SDP in conjunction with the 10 Local Planning Authorities (LPA’s) in the Cardiff Capital Region, and

Authorised Officers to proceed with a review and replacements of Bridgend’s existing LDP (whilst simultaneously working collaboratively with other LPA’s, wherever possible to prepare a shared a joint evidence base).