Agenda item

That:

1)        the Local Plan Update: Draft Plan (as set out in Appendix 2 to the report) and other supporting documents be agreed for consultation;

2)         the proposed consultation framework be agreed;

3)        any minor changes to the Draft Plan and material produced to support the consultation be delegated to the Director of Locality and Customer Services, in consultation with the Lead Member for Planning and Enforcement; and

4)        the Local Development Scheme 2019 (as set out in Appendix 3 to the report) be adopted.

The Executive considered a report seeking approval to carry out consultation on a proposed Local Plan Update: Draft Plan which once adopted would guide how development was managed.

The Leader of Council introduced the report and clarified that what was being considered was only the carrying out of a planned consultation and not approving the final Local Plan.  The consultation, which was the beginning of the due process for adopting the Local Plan, would be the means by which people could formally comment on the proposals in the draft Plan.   Councillor Halsall pointed out that there were a number of steps that were required to be taken before the adoption of the Local Plan including: signing up with the Government for the HIF bid; seeking protection for the Council’s planning policies; and referral to Executive and Council to consider representations to this consultation and approve any amendments to the Local Plan going forward.  If approved by Council then it would still need to go through the Examination in Public process. 

Councillor Haitham Taylor, Member for Shinfield South, voiced her disappointment with the proposals for a new town in Grazeley particularly when these proposals followed on from the tremendous and unprecedented response from residents against the Government’s housing targets during the Council’s ‘Enough is Enough’ campaign. 

From a ward perspective Councillor Haitham Taylor felt that this was a ‘kick in the teeth’ for residents who had already suffered mass development from the last Core Strategy local plan which had changed the nature and character of Shinfield, Three Mile Cross, Ryeish Green and Spencer’s Wood.  She believed that a new town could never be self-contained as promised in the draft Plan.

In addition Councillor Haitham Taylor stated that because of the following reasons, and the fact that she did not believe that residents’ responses to the consultation would be taken seriously, she would not be able to support the draft Plan:

·         The Local Plan Update was based on the assumption that the Council would be successful in winning the HIF bid which would unlock a £252m infrastructure fund to forward fund projects to make Grazeley sustainable.  However she did not believe that due to the time limit imposed on the funds that the money could be spent within such a short timeframe;

·         It assumes that the Government would allow a moratorium on development numbers for the rest of the Borough which would stop speculative sites coming forward; however there was no guarantee that this would happen.  It could however end up with a new town the size of Wokingham in a totally unsustainable location and hundreds of speculative applications elsewhere;

·         It dismisses many other viable and very sustainable developments in other parts of the Borough and it was likely that developers would still submit planning applications for these sites which could lead to more appeals being lost at a substantial cost to the Council;

·         Grazeley, as a much smaller development site, was proposed over 20 years ago and it failed at the Examination in Public stage.  She felt that many of the reasons it failed then were still appropriate now;

·         The reasons why the site was not sustainable for a new town were as follows:

o   the site was currently under water;

o   the roads were already at full capacity with the A33 causing tailbacks of 3-4 miles in the morning and Junction 11 onto the M4 at full capacity;

o   it was unlikely that residents in Mortimer and surrounding areas would stand by and watch their railway station being shut;

o   the types of houses needed to make this development sustainable were high rise blocks which were not suitable for the location;

o   there were constraints on the site in relation to the Atomic Weapons Establishment;

o   the Borough had the highest car ownership in the UK therefore the assumption that everyone would make use of public transport could not be backed up;

o   there was a total lack of capacity in the health service.

Councillor Haitham Taylor highlighted that Grazeley was a rural community containing small businesses, farms, a small number of social housing, GRT sites and mobile homes and was not an affluent area that was necessarily engaged with the Council as much as residents in other areas of the Borough.  It was therefore important that the Council should be making every effort to ensure that these residents’ views were heard.

In response the Leader of Council reiterated that if the Council did not have a Local Plan that set out how it would meet the Government’s target it would end up with unplanned development and subsequently lose a large number of appeals.  Developers who were unhappy with the proposals in the Local Plan Update would start submitting appeals for their sites.  The Local Plan Update consultation sets out how the 13,000 houses would be delivered i.e. 750 per year; which was considerably less than the 1,200 previously expected. Of those 13,000 houses 3,000 were from the Grazeley development and the rest were either the remainder of the SDLs or new small sites. 

Councillor Halsall reminded Members that discussions on the Grazeley site had been ongoing over the last 20 years, and not just the last four years as had been asserted, and Grazeley was the only site that the Government was prepared to consider for the provision of an infrastructure-led delivery.  If sites were lost by appeal no infrastructure would be provided. 

In relation to the ‘Enough is Enough’ campaign Councillor Halsall confirmed that a complete moratorium on house building across the Borough was never a realistic option. 

The Executive Member for Planning and Enforcement clarified that if the HIF bid was successful 3,000 houses would be built at Grazeley between now and 2036; not 15,000.  This was in addition to development on the smaller packages of sites across 10 towns and parishes whilst also ensuring that the other sites set out in the Core Strategy local plan were still delivered.  If a Corporation was set up this would provide the Council with greater control. 

In relation to a Plan ‘B’ option, as mentioned by one of the questioners, Councillor Smith confirmed that the only other option was to take all the 300 sites and downsize them to achieve the prescribed number however this would lead to development across the whole Borough and a lack of necessary infrastructure.  This type of approach would also lead to the Council having to borrow millions of pounds.  Whereas the approach proposed would deliver £252m; which was the equivalent based on current CIL receipts of 6,500 homes.  In addition to the £252m CIL receipts from the Grazeley development amounting to around £600m would also be received.

Although the formal adoption of the Local Plan Update would not be for some time Councillor Smith advised that the fact that the Local Plan process had formally started helped in the defence of planning appeals. 

Councillor Jorgensen stated that she believed that the housing targets were too high and that the issue was that there was too much growth in the south east and not enough across the country.  Borough residents had suffered from too much development too fast without sufficient infrastructure which had caused amongst other things traffic jams, lack of facilities etc.  Therefore despite feeling that the Council was being pushed into a corner in relation to housing numbers, which she believed were fundamentally wrong, Councillor Jorgensen felt that the proposal being put forward was the only solution.

Councillor Kaiser advised that in relation to the Arborfield development he and the neighbouring Ward Councillor had had to fight very hard to ensure that the relevant infrastructure was provided eg relief road and new school which would never have been made available if the 3,500 houses had not been accepted.   Councillor Kaiser did not believe that there was a more suitable site than Grazeley but wanted to ensure that the correct infrastructure would be delivered before the houses are built.  He hoped that the infrastructure that would be provided with the development would solve some of the existing problems in the area particularly as services and schools were under huge pressure.  Councillor Kaiser also felt that the housing numbers were too high and cited the fact that the Council had discussed the matter with Ministers on many occasions.  He felt that the Council should be able to make its own decision on what its housing numbers should be.

RECOMMENDATION that:

1)        the Local Plan Update: Draft Plan (as set out in Appendix 2 to the report) and other supporting documents be agreed for consultation;

2)         the proposed consultation framework be agreed;

3)        any minor changes to the Draft Plan and material produced to support the consultation be delegated to the Director of Locality and Customer Services, in consultation with the Lead Member for Planning and Enforcement; and

4)        the Local Development Scheme 2019 (as set out in Appendix 3 to the report) be adopted.