Councillor Stephens (Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Transport) introduced the item and highlighted:

a)    The Plymouth Plan had been in place since 2015 as a single holistic plan replacing over 140 strategies and had been recognised regionally, nationally and internationally;

b)    The plan set a clear strategic direction for the city, covering social, economic and environmental wellbeing and was owned by the City Council and city stakeholders;

c)    The plan had been refreshed three times and integrated with the Plymouth and Southwest Devon Joint Local Plan adopted in March 2019, giving it a clear spatial expression;

d)    The Plymouth Plan and Local Plan were separate but connected, with the Local Plan acting as the spatial strategy for the Plymouth Plan;

e)    Research by the Plymouth Health Determinants Research Collaboration found strong support for continuing the Plymouth Plan, even among those with low awareness of it;

f)     Feedback highlighted the need to simplify the plan, focusing on key outcomes rather than detailed policy revisions which should sit within delivery plans;

g)     A comprehensive review was needed as much of the content remained as it was in 2015 despite major changes including Brexit, the COVID19 pandemic, cost of living crisis, climate emergency declaration and economic impacts of the war in Ukraine;

h)    The city faced significant opportunities including city centre transformation, designation as a National Defence Growth Area, National Centre for Marine Autonomy and £4.4 billion government investment into HM Naval Base Devonport and Babcock’s Dockyard;

i)     The review process was at stage one, aiming to raise awareness and scope key issues. Councillors were asked to contribute perspectives on whether the plan addressed the most important strategic issues and identify areas for inclusion;

j)     The review provided an opportunity to integrate areas such as play into the plan and ensure the strategy includes the right hooks for delivery plans.

In response to questions, supported by Kat Deeney (Head of Environmental Planning), Jonathan Bell (Head of Spatial Planning and Sustainable Development) and Paul Barnard (Service Director, Strategic Planning and Infrastructure), the following was discussed:

k)    There had been ongoing discussions about how the Plymouth Plan worked and its value, which could not be achieved without partnership work. The programme set out in the draft paper looked ahead to the autumn of 2026 and was expected to move more swiftly than a local plan;

                      i.        From late spring to early summer, work was planned to pull together a draft plan for consultation, providing opportunities for input before final endorsement by City Council and partnership boards;

                     ii.        Partners had consulted within their own communities to ensure the information feeding into the plan was as thorough as possible and there would be opportunities to reconnect with scrutiny at key stages to keep members informed and involved throughout the process;

l)     The existing Plymouth Plan was a large document, but the intention had been to reduce it down because it was a high-level strategic plan. Beneath were plans such as the Plan for Nature and the Local Plan, which contained the detail and the month-on-month delivery processes. The Plymouth Plan would act as the overarching framework, setting out the strategic direction while individual plans provided detailed actions;

m)  The review had aimed to look at the entire delivery framework to ensure the Plymouth Plan remained the guiding document. It was noted that partners valued the clarity and structure the Plymouth Plan provided, making it easier to tell the story of the city and align priorities;

n)    The Plymouth Plan was adopted for the city with a defined lifespan and went to City Council for approval;

o)    The Plymouth Plan provided continuity and clarity for investors and partners, ensuring priorities remained clear regardless of administration. This approach had supported successful funding bids and created a broad consensus on the city’s direction. The review would refresh the vision and strategic objectives to reflect current challenges and opportunities while maintaining that collective approach;

p)    There had been ongoing efforts to identify best practice elsewhere, but no other city had created a single integrated plan in quite the same way. When the Plymouth Plan was introduced, it had been inspired by the Portland Plan in the United States of America (USA);

q)    As part of the review, benchmarking and learning from other authorities would be explored to ensure great ideas were adopted where possible;

r)    The next annual report would update data and maintain the evidence-driven approach. The review would refresh indicators and test whether current metrics were still appropriate, as many dated back to 2015;

s)     Tools such as Power BI and AI were used to create real-time monitoring and an online dashboard, making data live, rather than static, which would be explored to monitor the plan;

t)     The vision was for the Plymouth Plan to remain a digital document that allowed users to access relevant information easily.

The Panel agreed:

1. To note the update on and proposed review of the Plymouth Plan.