Question
I asked the Executive Member for Planning and Regeneration on 26-1-2017 the following question but due to my inability to attend the meeting the following written answer was provided to me: Question. With reference to the Judgment in the case of Gladman vs WBC case number Case No: CO/1455/2014 heard in July 2014 what were the implications of the judgement for Wokingham Borough Council, both the pros and the cons?
The reply was lengthy but the final paragraph was "The only thing I can think of is that the MDD challenge has now been superseded by an Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) of our housing numbers – this was reflected in the judgement. This is a technical assessment and evidence base. The Council has not signed up to providing this estimated need. This will be a process addressed through the Local Plan review".
If the Council has not signed up to the Objectively Assessed Need than why has our housing numbers risen from just over 600 in our adopted Core Strategy, which was subject to a full public consultation and a public inquiry, to an ever increasing number nearing 900 now without any public consultation and no public inquiry?
Minutes:
Question
I asked the Executive Member for Planning and Regeneration on 26-1-2017 the following question but due to my inability to attend the meeting the following written answer was provided to me: Question. With reference to the Judgment in the case of Gladman vs WBC case number Case No: CO/1455/2014 heard in July 2014 what were the implications of the judgement for Wokingham Borough Council, both the pros and the cons?
The reply was lengthy but the final paragraph was "The only thing I can think of is that the MDD challenge has now been superseded by an Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) of our housing numbers – this was reflected in the judgement. This is a technical assessment and evidence base. The Council has not signed up to providing this estimated need. This will be a process addressed through the Local Plan review".
If the Council has not signed up to the Objectively Assessed Need than why has our housing numbers risen from just over 600 in our adopted Core Strategy, which was subject to a full public consultation and a public inquiry, to an ever increasing number nearing 900 now without any public consultation and no public inquiry?
Answer
Simply put the number of new homes we are expected to accommodate has changed because the Government has introduced new rules, and they keep changing them. I am not happy about that and I know that you are not.
The Core Strategy housing requirement, you were quite right, was 662 per year dates from the South East Plan (2009), which you will also know an awful lot about, which was revoked by the Government in 2013.
Through the introduction of the first National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in 2012, a new approach to calculating housing need was introduced. This was changed again, with the Government publishing a revised National Planning Policy Framework in 2018, with further amendments already in 2019. As you know we are making our feelings felt about all these changes and the things that we come across.
The Government currently requires housing need to be calculated through a standard method. It uses the national household projection for each local authority and applies an affordability adjustment based on median house prices and earnings. For Wokingham Borough, the housing need through this approach calculates as 864 dwellings per annum. This however needs to be recalculated each year so the figure will change. Again we have pointed this out through our MPs that we are not happy about this either.
We are required by Government policy to use the standard method both as the starting point for progressing our Local Plan Update, and for calculating our deliverable housing land supply. This is not a matter of choice.
I am sure you will agree that the constant changes to Government policy and guidance are not helping anyone in preparing any plans. I am sure you will also agree that the Government’s driving of the planning system to increase housing requirements without regard to where the homes should be and should not be directed across the country is completely unsatisfactory and undermines efforts to plan properly for the long term. Again we are taking this up very strongly with our Government; although they are busy on something else at the moment.
Notwithstanding the difficulties, we continue to progress our local plan work, following the clear process and requirements set out in legislation and Government policy. This is the best way we can defend residents against unsustainable and unplanned developments that will harm our Borough.
Supplementary Question
Picking on that the Objectively Assessed Need housing number does throw up some issues of concern. The Memorandum of Understanding, signed by the four Councils in the western housing market area, states that between them all, including Wokingham, they would meet this OAN which is about 3,300 per year. Reading in the housing local plan examination in public, which is going on now, said that they are 1,000 houses short and they call the Memorandum of Understanding as the solution which the Inspector appears to be comfortable with. So they are looking for somewhere to put 1,000 houses.
My question therefore is does our OAN take into consideration this shortfall in Reading which occurs later in the plan period or will it be dealt with by the Grazeley Garden Settlement document, approved by the Conservative Group on 13 October 2016, which saw the Grazeley masterplan and our Local Plan to be adopted in November of this year. But as our Local Plan has been rolled back to 2021 I assume the Grazeley masterplan will also be so it’s housing trajectory on page 23 shows 1,750 houses to be built by 2020-2025. Will that now be 2022-2027 and carrying out at 450 a year for evermore after that? Would this not be a better solution to help Reading out?
Supplementary Answer
Nobody is saying that we are not going to help Reading out. They do not ask us to help out as they know what the answer is; and the answer is no.
The Leader of Council responded as follows:
Gary as you know, as you have been on this Council longer than I have things change and I think you had left the Council Chamber last Thursday before I made my speech. What I said was, and I stand by this wholeheartedly, was that we are building too many. Even if we continue with what we have already approved, which is the 8,000, we know we have another 2,000 coming. We have got more than an 11 year land supply so what we are saying to the Government is we do our bit but we are not going to do more than our bit. So we are not going to do more than Reading, we are not going to do more than Bracknell. We want to do our bit. We are certainly not taking any houses from any other local authority.
We have made a statement to the Government and so far the response has been quite positive. We said that if we have to do any further development, if and it is a big if, then we will want it to be a standalone development where we can put the infrastructure in first and then build the houses as that is what gets residents frustrated. That we build the houses then we put the roads in. You should put the roads in first and get the infrastructure right. So this is the condition that we have made to the Government. They have come back to us and said right, ok, work it up; us and five or six other local authorities. Work up a feasibility study to see whether it is viable. We are not too sure whether it is viable or not but we have got Officers working on that. That is what that money is for. Now if the Government want us to work that up and pay for it we are happy to do it but it makes no compulsion on us to actually build those houses or go ahead with it.
I make it very clear that this Authority is changing the way it looks at housing. We are going to build less houses than we have built. We will still maintain our five year land supply and then we will continue to fight with the Government and we have got our local MPs to support that. After the election we will be going back to every resident in this Borough to say “do you agree with this or not” and if you agree with it then hopefully we will get 40, 50, 60,000 people to give us their thoughts and if they agree with what we are doing that gives us a very big powerful message to give back to Government to say enough is enough.