Jackson Ng at Growth, Infrastructure & Housing Select Committee, 10 July 2026

Thank you to Cabinet Members and the officers for putting this together, given the compressed timetable. I completely agree that we should get this going as soon as possible to prevent the National Government from intervening for the sake of our county and residents. To that mind, I've got three link questions, and I'll bring them through really quickly. Just on the back of what Councillor Thratbury said, really, my question now is really about the gap between now and adoption in 2028. So that's my first question. During that period, the area planning committees must keep determining applications against this emerging plan, which I understand at Reg 19, before examination and objections are even resolved, might, or I don't know, carries limited weight. So, especially when the Council has no five -year housing supply, sort of tilted balance, I understand, already runs in favour of development. That leaves planning committees, officers and residents, potentially, or not residents, but officers and committees, refusing schemes that actually accord with our emerging allocations, which is premature and vulnerable on appeal with cost, or alternatively, which I'm very concerned about, being driven to grant unallocated greenfields and greybelt sites by default. So, can officers, you know, inform the committee what single, if applicable, written interim decisions, protocol members will be given, or officers will be given, which covers our current land supply position, how much weight to give to the emerging allocations, and greybelt mapping, and at which milestones might these increase in weight? That's the first question. Then the second question, really, is really towards the soundness, the legalness of it. At Reg 18, the Council planned for, I think Steve mentioned, a 5 % buffer. At Reg 19, we now have got only a margin of 35 homes. Now, I understand what Steve's mentioned earlier, but with headroom debt thin, the moment an inspector finds any single allocation undeliverable, my fear is that the plan might fall on its own requirement. How is that being positively prepared by the authority? And my last question, really, is consistency with the national policy is judged at adoption in 2028, not today. Now, we all know a draft MPPF was published in December 2025. Now, what is the plan's exposure if, in between, the national Labour government decide that, well, we're going to change the MPPF again? You know, how is that compressed time table being managed so that the speed itself does not become a legal, compliant risk down the line? Thank you, Chairman. Thank you. Thank you for the question. So, on the first point around weight. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

What's the definition of a major site that's going to be represented? And then second question is, would there be scope for the map to also reflect pending applications as well? That's what I was asking. Thank you. So I think the pending application point has been answered around potential confusion.

Fibre Housing Supply. I've picked up the fact that my understanding is if we could have this plan, this draft plan and what we want to go ahead and propose to build, etc. But if the developers decide to lend bank, having had planning permission, my reading of it is we'll still be short of housing supply. We'll still be facing speculative applications. So what is the council going to do about that? What can we do about it? What can our MPs do about it? Thank you. Well, I'll give you the first response. I think that risk exists with any plan, not just ours. And...

We have this very sort of labour supply driven, aligning jobs of housing, etc, etc. But data centres by nature generate very few permanent jobs for the county and the power to consume. So have they been countered into our employment need and have we considered how it might distort the job -home balance if a lot of them came into this area? Then also the follow -up question is if there was a large data centre that said actually we wanted a strategic employment site, what safeguards do we have to displace, to prevent it from displacing the higher jobs density needs those sites were initially sort of ring -fenced for or designated for? Thank you. Follow my chain of thought. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. So in terms of the overall level of need, I think as you rightly point out, they are not very intensive in terms of the overall level of need.

Policy is seeking to protect and that will give us the grounds to not approve on those.