Agenda item

To consider a progress update on the development of the Local Plan Update.

The Committee considered a report, set out in agenda pages 31 to 40, which set out a progress report on the development of the Local Plan Update (LPU).

Lindsay Ferris (Executive Member for Planning and the Local Plan) Stephen Conway (Executive Member for Housing) and Ian Bellinger (Service Manager for Growth and Delivery) attended the meeting to answer member queries.

During the ensuing discussion, members raised the following points and queries:

·         What timeline was being worked towards and was it possible to speed it up, and if the Government changed the housing number requirement after publication of the LPU could the LPU be updated? Executive Member and officer response – The team had not been asked to adhere to a strict schedule of key milestones as of yet as it was still to be decided which direction Wokingham Borough Council would prefer to go. The two options available were to progress to a regulation 19 order, meaning that WBC would predominantly progress with the previously consulted plan, or go out for a further regulation 18 order, which would present a number of different options via consultation. The direction of progress would be discussed by the cross-party working group, whilst officers would produce a technical recommendation and if members wished to move in a different direction, then a regulation 18 consultation would be required. Progress had already been slow due to the necessity of two regulation 18 consultations. The Local Plan was required to be reviewed every 5 years, however it could be reviewed more frequently as and when required;

·         Was there a requirement to provide an additional twenty-percent of housing in case under delivery, and was it possible to omit this as WBC had a history of over delivery? Officer response – The twenty-percent figure was for Local Authorities with a history of under delivery. WBC had a five-percent figure applied to allow for market changes;

·         What were the implications of not meeting the December 2023 deadline for a completed LPU? Officer response – There was generally no intervention by Government so long as progress was evidenced to be made. The December 2023 deadline would already be a push to achieve, and the risk of intervention was a matter of debate;

·         It was noted that WBC could not currently demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. The argument proposed by WBC that over delivery of housing in prior years should be taken into account should temper the balance of the lack of five-year housing land supply with inspectors, however this issue would persist from now until a new Local Plan was adopted. It was expected that WBC would lose more appeals due to the tiled balance process;

·         Was it possible to plan infrastructure such as telephone masts at the outline stage of development, were there powers to enforce community spaces and building to be delivered at new developments, and was the Borough Design Guide planned to be updated alongside the LPU? Executive Member and officer response – Policies could be updated to stress that infrastructure was required to be installed early in the development process, however planning officers could not stop people or companies coming back with a planning application for things such as telephone masts after development was completed. If community buildings were specified as part of the planning application, then they would have to be delivered as part of the development else an amendment to the application would be required to be submitted. Delays to construction of such buildings often occurred due to issues with phasing. The Borough Design Guide was also being updated, and members and the public were encouraged to come forward with any suggestions;

·         What percentage of social housing was being sought at new developments? Executive Member response – The aspiration was to deliver fifty percent of all new housing as social housing, however this may not necessarily be achievable as it was a balancing act to get a number of different things from developers such as infrastructure and other payments;

·         It was noted that developers had an option on almost every potential piece of development land in the Borough. Developers could also choose the pace of development, by delivering a large development quickly (as had been happening on Wokingham) or slowing it right down;

·         Was it possible to plan to deliver a new secondary school as part of the LPU? Officer response – The only land suitable to deliver a secondary school was at Hall Farm;

·         Was there anything that could be done to speed up the timeline of development of the LPU? Executive Member and officer response – The team were undertaking a considerable amount of detailed technical work, in conjunction with working alongside the cross-party working group. This work was crucial to deliver a sound and acceptable LPU;

·         It was noted that due to the Borough’s proximity to London, this would continue to push house prices up. There was a critical need to deliver truly affordable housing within the Borough;

·         When would it be possible for officers to deliver a technical recommendation to members? Officer response – Initial discussions would take place prior to Christmas 2022, whilst technical testing of the evidence base would take place next year, and an informal recommendation hoped to be delivered in around the pre-election period next year;

·         It was requested that main roads were not positioned between housing and schools at new developments;

·         It was requested that an update be considered by the Committee in May or June 2023;

·         Were there plans to engage with residents and developers? Executive Member response – This would be considered, however the LPU needed to get to a point where a strong case could be demonstrated for a particular site or sites;

·         Was there a communications plan to engage early and often with residents who were voicing concerns over potential development sites? Executive Member response – It was important to recognise that there was a very specific process to be undertaken here. If a developer sensed that a decision was being made on anything other than sound planning grounds they would then raise this at a public inspection. All interested parties were invite to the public inspection to make their case.

RESOLVED That:

1)      Stephen Conway, Lindsay Ferris and Ian Bellinger be thanked for attending the meeting;

2)      An additional update be considered by the Committee in May or June of 2023.