Regulation 10A outlines the legal requirement to review local plans and states that all local planning authorities must complete a review of a local plan every five years from the date of adoption.
Information an authority can consider when determining whether policies need updating:
|
||
Case Study: Waverley Borough CouncilWaverley Borough Council was one of the local authorities that utilised the PAS toolkit to complete its local plan review. The results of the review were presented to the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee in January 2023, just under five years after the Local Plan was adopted (February 2018).
The three aspects of their review included:
The Council completed the PAS toolkit drawing on information provided through the other two aspects of its review. The results of the toolkit allowed the Council to conclude that a full update would be required, and to identify the key reasons for this, such as areas where the Plan was considered out-of-date against new national policy. Going forward, this can help to structure and focus the update process.
|
||
Case Study: Exmoor National Park Authority
One of the local planning authorities that decided not to update its local plan was Exmoor National Park (ENP). It had followed a similar review process to Waverley Borough Council above, including completing a policy assessment using the PAS toolkit. An online survey and stakeholder workshop had also been held, and three Topic Papers on Housing and Communities, Economy, and Environment were published. The review concluded that the local plan remained effective and an update was not required. These results were presented at a Council meeting where Members agreed with the recommendation not to update, justified by the outcomes of the review process.
However, whilst the review process had concluded that an update was not required, it did identify areas for further action in each of the three topic areas above. These included producing additional guidance for applicants on affordable housing delivery, biodiversity net gain, and climate change. This is a positive example of where the review process has highlighted gaps in policy and initiated other work, despite not resulting in the preparation of an updated local plan.
|
||
Case Study: Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council
Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council (BDBC) adopted its Local Plan in May 2016 and completed a review of its policies by May 2019. This was intended to consider “changing local circumstances, new strategic priorities and updates in national policy”. It concluded that the policies generally remained relevant and therefore did not require updating to remain sound in terms of national guidance. However, BDBC stated that as a result of the introduction of the standard methodology since the adoption of the current Local Plan, the Borough’s housing need figure was highly likely to have changed. The standard methodology identified a local housing need figure of 955 dwellings per annum – 12% above the adopted figure of 850 dpa. In the light of this, BDBC concluded that its Local Plan would need to be updated in order to meet the requirements of NPPF Paragraph 33. Interestingly, the latest standard method figure for BDBC (as of January 2024) using updated input figures is 830, showing the difficulty in creating static plans in this dynamic and ever-changing sphere. |
|
|
|
|
|
Case Study: Birmingham City Council
Birmingham City Council (BCC) adopted its Local Plan in January 2017. A Local Plan Review Assessment Report was published in April 2021 using the PAS toolkit. This concluded that a full update was required. A key driver for this was the 35% “urban centres” uplift that formed part of the changes to the standard methodology in December 2020. BCC stated that “this will increase Birmingham’s housing numbers considerably when compared to the BDP [Birmingham Development Plan] housing requirement”. The housing requirement contained within the adopted BDP is 2,555 dpa. This is just 38% of the standard methodology figure of 6,750 dpa that applied at the time of the BCC report. The latest figures (as of 2024) show that the local housing need figure has increased even further to 7,090 dpa. There is no doubt that this was considered a significant change. BCC therefore concluded that it was “critical for the city to respond to this through a plan update” and undertake a “thorough review of the city’s capacity to accommodate as much development as possible”. The updated Local Plan is now being prepared, but adoption is not currently expected until Summer 2026. |
|
|
|
|
|
Case Study: Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council
Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (SMBC) adopted its Local Plan in April 2017 and reported the results of a high-level review to Cabinet over six years later in June 2023. SMBC stated that its Local Plan would need a partial update as several policies were out-of-date. However, a decision was made to delay the update process, due to the government’s announcement of upcoming changes to plan-making policy. The government has set a deadline for plans created under the current system to be submitted by June 2025 and adopted by the end of 2026. SMBC concluded it would not be possible to meet the June 2025 deadline, therefore “it would be reasonable to delay a new Local Plan until the reformed planning system is introduced”. The government has set out that the earliest a local authority could start preparing a plan under the new system is Autumn 2024. This means SMBC will continue to be in limbo until at least then, by which point its adopted Local Plan will be nearly eight years old. |
|
|
|
|
|
Case Study: Central Lincolnshire Local Plan
Lincoln City Council, North Kesteven District Council and West Lindsey District Council jointly adopted the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan in April 2017. The Local Plan Team Leader presented a report to the Strategic Planning Committee in January 2019 outlining changes to national policy since April 2017. This centred on the July 2018 NPPF update which included the new five-year review requirement, the standard methodology (which actually produced a figure that was lower than the adopted housing requirement), and the Housing Delivery Test. The report noted that the adopted Plan did not incorporate these, making it potentially less robust in making and defending decisions. It was therefore recommended that a review should be undertaken immediately rather than waiting until the fifth anniversary of adoption. The review concluded that only a partial update was required, as much of the Local Plan was operating effectively and much of the evidence base was still up to date, given the Plan was only two years old. An updated version was adopted in April 2023, exactly six years after the previous Plan’s adoption, making this the fastest update in our sample. |
|
|
|
|
|