A petition relating to overdevelopment in the Borough and specifically development in the Shinfield area was submitted at the Council meeting held on 20 September 2018. The petition contained in excess of 1,500 signatures which is the threshold to trigger a debate at Council.
Minutes:
The Mayor announced that a petition relating to overdevelopment in the Borough and specifically development in the Shinfield area was submitted at the Council meeting held on 20 September 2018. The petition contained approximately 1,500 signatures which was the threshold to trigger a debate at Council.
Mr Chatfield addressed the meeting and set out the background in the petition. He thanked residents for their support and for signing the petition. He indicated that he hoped to convey the depth and strength of feeling that Shinfield South residents had against the mass, inappropriate and ill thought out housing development in the area.
With regards to the Council’s own policies, Mr Chatfield questioned what they meant and what they were used for. It was felt that these policies were often ignored. Mr Chatfield referred to the 2010 Core Strategy which stated ‘to maintain and enhance the separation and distinctiveness of Borough settlements’ and ‘to provide housing in appropriate locations, scales and types to meet the needs of the Borough.’ The Vision of the Core Strategy referred to ‘improvement in infrastructure is a key to the success of the Strategy. It aims to ensure that everyone has improved access to high quality services such as schools, open space and recreation, health and community facilities to maintain social wellbeing, health and quality of life.’ He felt that this had not been applied in the case of Shinfield, Spencers Wood, Three Mile Cross, Arborfield and Grazeley
Mr Chatfield went on to state that residents had been encouraged to support the Shinfield Neighbourhood Plan as a way of protecting the parish from mass inappropriate development. Although adopted, he felt that the Neighbourhood Plan was now ignored. The land south of Cutbush Lane had not been due to be considered for development in this plan.
Mr Chatfield stated that many residents felt betrayed and that enough was enough. There should be a pause in development in the area and time allowed for an independent assessment of the impact of the current approvals and what the impact of what further development would be. He also wanted to see the commissioning of an independent review of the infrastructure and any gaps.
Members discussed the petition. Parry Batth commented that he was pleased to see so many residents present in support of the petition. He represented Shinfield North and development in Shinfield South also had a direct impact on his residents, particularly with regards to traffic congestion on Shinfield Road. Parry Batth stated that any further development needed to be sustainable and suitable with green spaces and the identity of the villages maintained. It was important that development was strategically rather than developer led. He emphasised that it was vital that a viable Local Plan was in place to protect from the vagaries of Government Inspectors and housing numbers. He went on to comment that the Council had met with senior Government officials to highlight issues faced by the Borough.
Lindsay Ferris stated that a new Local Plan would run until 2036. On current projections the Borough would have an increased number of properties, between 752 and 896 homes per year, between 15-18,000 properties, depending on the formula used. This represented a 30% growth. Lindsay Ferris went on to comment that there would be an impact on the character of the Borough and that he believed infrastructure would struggle to cope. Shinfield was one area that had taken more than its fair share of new properties and its character had changed considerably. He was of the view that the number of properties was unsustainable and that the Council should lobby Government to lower the figure that Wokingham Borough was projected to take.
Charlotte Haitham Taylor indicated that over 10,000 residents had signed petitions objecting to overdevelopment in different areas of the Borough. This provided a clear mandate to tell the Government that although the Council supported economic growth it should not be at the expense of the residents and the ecology of the area. Central Government had assessed their housing projection numbers. She felt that the new figure of 894 should be much lower, below 700. She commented that residents in her ward were already subjected to traffic congestion on a daily basis. Inappropriate development on flood plains had already been approved on appeal leading to poor quality homes and other successful appeals had led to the erosion of settlement gaps. Charlotte Haitham Taylor emphasised the importance of working with residents to build the solid foundations for communities for current and future generations.
Gary Cowan stated that the petition clearly showed the concerns of Shinfield residents and those of the surrounding area around the proposed Local Plan. He indicated that the plan showed over 650ha of green field submitted for proposed development in Shinfield, Grazeley, Arborfield and Barkham alone. The greenbelt in the northern parishes was also threatened. He referred to the three petitions already submitted on the subject of over development and commented that he expected more to come. Gary Cowan expressed concern regarding the process around the submission of Motions following a petition debate.
Simon Weeks stressed that all Governments wanted more houses built. Additionally many employers in the area also wanted houses built for their staff. The South East was a major driver of the economy and the need for new homes inevitable as the population grew. The Council as the Planning Authority had to ensure that the right type of homes were built in the right place, in the right numbers and at the right time. However, supporting infrastructure was a challenge. Simon Weeks stressed that prior to the development of the current Local Plan the Council had surveyed every household explaining the requirement to have a Plan as to where new homes needed to be built. Responses had shown support for several new communities which were delivered as the Strategic Development Locations. The current plan incorporated approximately £0.5bn investment in essential infrastructure and the average developer contribution for each new home was over £40,000. The Council now had the second highest rates for Community Infrastructure Levy paid by developers or landowners on developments outside London. Simon Weeks emphasised that between 2008 and 2013 the Council had had a target of 3,200 homes but less than half had actually been built and the shortfall had been added to future targets. Build rates in the last three years had surged helped by a variety of Government incentives. Nevertheless, the housing delivery numbers over the Local Plan cumulative period were now back on track. The Council was in a stronger position to refuse and defend speculative applications at appeal.
Andy Croy stated that he was sympathetic to residents’ concerns and that there was a real future threat to more of the Borough’s communities. He commented that there was too much demand for housing in the area.
Anthony Pollock indicated that Shinfield had seen a large number of houses built over the last few years with more to come as the sites allocated under the Local Plan up to 2026, were completed. Since the approval of the Local Plan there had been an upward drift in the number of houses. The Council had resisted additional houses at planning appeals for Beech Hill House, Stanbury House and Parklands, amongst others. He commented that residents were justifiably upset with the system that had allowed this upward drift in housing numbers and referred to areas of particular infrastructure difficulty. Anthony Pollock emphasised that even if the Planning Authority refused an application the Planning Inspector could override this. It was therefore vital to have a robust Local Plan in place.
Stuart Munro commented that he understood residents’ concerns. However, the Council was constrained by the law. It was necessary to take control of more affordable and social housing.
Prue Bray noted that it had been a Member from another ward that had presented the petition rather than a Shinfield South ward Member.
Clive Jones commented that development was a major issue nationally. There was a need for more one and two bedrooms houses and bungalows but developers preferred not to build these as there was less return on investment. He questioned why Wokingham Borough was required to build more homes than other local areas and emphasised that Shinfield had taken more than its fair share.
In summing up Mr Chatfield stated that there had been a slowdown in development in Shinfield. He felt that the Core Strategy was not working and that it was significantly different to the one originally put to residents. He encouraged the Council to say no to further development in the area as residents had had enough.
The following Motion was proposed by Stuart Munro and seconded by Parry Batth.
“This Council recognises that residents rightly feel that the number of houses being imposed on our Borough is currently too high. This Council, as a champion of our community, will continue to robustly make our case to Government to lower the recent housing numbers. The number of houses is determined by a Government formula and has been mandated by successive governments of all major parties.
Further, this Council will continue to challenge inappropriate developments in our Borough, and we are supported in this approach by recent decisions to dismiss several planning appeals.
This Council is currently undertaking a comprehensive consultation across the Borough with residents, to get their views on the sites that have been proposed as part of the statutory Local Plan process.
All sites will be subject to comprehensive assessment and engagement before the Council approves its preferred strategy and site allocations through the Local Plan process.”
A number of Members expressed concern with regards to the process around Motions submitted following a petition debate and requested that this be reviewed by the Constitution Review Working Group.
Upon being put to the vote it was:
RESOLVED: That this Council recognises that residents rightly feel that the number of houses being imposed on our Borough is currently too high. This Council, as a champion of our community, will continue to robustly make our case to Government to lower the recent housing numbers. The number of houses is determined by a Government formula and has been mandated by successive governments of all major parties.
Further, this Council will continue to challenge inappropriate developments in our Borough, and we are supported in this approach by recent decisions to dismiss several planning appeals.
This Council is currently undertaking a comprehensive consultation across the Borough with residents, to get their views on the sites that have been proposed as part of the statutory Local Plan process.
All sites will be subject to comprehensive assessment and engagement before the Council approves its preferred strategy and site allocations through the Local Plan process.