Decision

To approve publication of the Fenland 50 Gateway 1 Self-Assessment and associated materials, including the Local Plan Engagement Strategy and related Fenland 50 webpage updates.

Reasons for the decision

In December 2025, Council resolved to withdraw the previous Draft Fenland Local Plan, and begin preparing a new Local Plan, known as Fenland 50, under the new plan-making system.

In April 2026, Cabinet approved a governance and delegation pathway to support preparation of Fenland 50. The Cabinet report noted that the new system requires a strict 30-month preparation timetable, a digital-first approach and three mandatory Gateway stages. It also confirmed that procedural and technical milestones, including Gateway submissions and timetable updates, may be approved under delegated authority to help avoid delay, while major policy stages will remain subject to Member approval.

Gateway 1 marks the formal start of the new Local Plan process. As part of Gateway 1, the Council is required to demonstrate that it is ready to begin preparing Fenland 50 and to publish a summary explaining the work undertaken to prepare for plan-making. The Gateway 1 Self-Assessment explains how the Council published a timetable, established project management and governance arrangements, prepared a Local Plan Engagement Strategy, began scoping the content of the plan, commenced environmental assessment work and established arrangements for keeping communities and stakeholders informed and involved.

Publication of the Gateway 1 Self-Assessment and associated materials will support transparency, provide initial context for residents and stakeholders, and help explain how the Council intends to progress Fenland 50 within the Government’s 30-month timeframe.

Alternative options considered

The main alternative considered was not to publish the Gateway 1 Self-Assessment and associated materials at this stage. This was not considered appropriate because Gateway 1 marks the formal start of the Fenland 50 plan-making process and publication of the summary will help demonstrate readiness, transparency and progress against the 30-month timetable.

A further alternative would be to delay publication until additional information becomes available. This was not considered appropriate because the Gateway 1 material is intended to explain the preparatory work undertaken to date and signpost how communities and stakeholders can stay involved as the plan progresses. The timetable and webpages can be kept under review and updated where necessary.