Planners in East Devon could be under pressure to pass more applications

Planners could be put under more pressure to approve controversial or unpopular applications in East Devon because of rules dictating how much land must be available for development.

Councillors discussed at length whether the committee that decides whether to approve planning schemes could be leaned on to pass more applications so that the authority can claim to have a five-year housing land supply.
Under the national planning policy framework, or NPPF, all councils need to be able to show they have waived through enough applications to meet their annual housing needs for a five-year period.
East Devon is just shy of this at 4.5 years, which in its case means roughly another 447 homes need to be approved to hit the magic five-year level.
But councillors were told that consent would need to be granted for land that catered for “well in excess” of that number.
Targeting a higher number would mean the authority had a better chance of securing those 447 extra homes it needs to approve, as this would allow tolerance for some schemes not to be completed within five years.
Because of recent changes to the calculation, East Devon now needs to build 893 homes per year, slightly down on the 910 a year.
Ed Freeman, assistant director of planning strategy and development management, told East Devon’s strategic planning committee, which deals with district-wide planning issues rather than individual applications, that “this drop is where the good news ends”.
“We do need to show at least five years’ supply by the time we submit our emerging local plan by the end of June next year,” he said.
Mr Freeman said his team had modelled potential supply in sites that may be included in the new local plan, and that many of them suffered from a lack of surrounding infrastructure, meaning they could take years to develop.
And while there are plans for a so-called ‘second new community’ – akin to something like Cranbrook – which would account for large numbers of homes, there were “significant constraints” in getting development started.
“I don’t think taking no action leads to good outcomes,” Mr Freeman said.
“So, my recommendation is that the committee advises the planning committee that when it considers planning applications for housing developments that will deliver homes within the next five years in a sustainable way, that significant weight should be given to the need to bolster the council’s housing land supply position.”
Cllrr Ian Barlow (Independent, Sidmouth Town) asked whether the council could do anything to ensure developers with approved applications started building as soon as possible.
But Mr Freeman said that other than shortening the time that a planning application is valid for without work commencing, there was no way to compel developers to build.
And Cllrr Olly Davey (Green Party, Exmouth Town) feared the strategic planning committee was being asked to tell the planning committee to “ignore provisions in the current local plan”.
“And I’m not particularly happy about that,” Cllr Davey a former chair of the planning committee, said.
“We are all aware of the need to deliver housing, but we want it in the right place, with the right amount being affordable, and therefore I am not happy with this advice to the planning committee.”
The council has sought advice on what to do about its housing land supply from the Kings Counsel, barristers with expert knowledge of certain areas of law.
The advice noted that future housing land supply issues were “capable of being a material consideration” when deciding planning applications.
And this was especially the case with much-needed affordable housing applications where demand often outstrips supply.
“In his conclusion, the KC advises that the council should note that the government has a longstanding approach of seeking to boost the delivery of housing and, in particular, affordable housing,” Mr Freeman said.
The strategic planning committee passed a motion to advise the planning committee to be aware of the housing land supply issue when considering applications. However, three members voted against and one abstained.