To comment on the report to be considered by Cabinet on the 25 May 2017.

The Planning Manager informed Members that on 7 February 2017 the government published its Housing white paper: ‘Fixing our broken housing market’. Members were informed that it contained a series of proposals intended to improve the delivery of housing and inviting responses by 2 May 2017. It was noted that the report summarised the key aspects of the white paper and the Royal Borough’s response. Members were informed that there were no direct costs associated with the report and the response was in line with the council’s strategic outcome to continue investing in infrastructure and support the regeneration of our towns whilst protecting the character of the Royal Borough and its overall ambition to build a borough for everyone. 

Members were informed that there were a number of significant areas of interest for the council given its progress to date in adopting the Borough Local Plan and in light of its ambitious regeneration agenda. The key amongst these were:

·         Proposed changes to wording of the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development.

·         The plan making process.

·         Changes to duty to co-operate.

·         Assessing housing requirements.

·         The role of Green Belt land.

·         Housing land supply certainty.

·         Changes to planning fees to boost local authority capacity.

·         The introduction of a housing delivery test.

·         Build to rent.

·         Changes to s106 / CIL.

·         Extension of right to buy and its implications for the council.

The Planning Manager went onto explain that three of the four chapters were subject to consultation and that there were 38 questions in the consultation and the Borough’s responses were available in Appendix A (pages 97-110 in the agenda); the deadline for responses was the 2 May.  Members were informed that the final chapter confirmed the government’s commitment to introduce a number of previously trailed measures and did not form part of the consultation.

The Lead Member for Planning, Councillor Derek Wilson, added that an awful lot of work had gone into this document within a very limited / tight timescale, hence it was before the Panel tonight.  Members were informed that there were some implications of concern were that a plan should be presented every five years – it was noted that the Royal Borough last submitted a plan in 2007 and the Regulation 19 consultation document would be going to Full Council on the 19 June.  It was noted that the officers linked to this had been working extra hard as it not only involved a number of different strands but had resulted in a lot of evidence gathering. 

In the ensuing discussion the following points were noted:

·         Whether developers could come back to the Council at a later date if comments were ignored.  The Planning Manager agreed to check whether a minimum figure was quoted.

·         That Question 1 was a retrospective endorsement in order to meet the deadline.

·         The Lead Member for Planning explained that since the Local Plan did not get enough traction in 2007, hence the new Regulation 18 consultation leading into Regulation 19, it looked to deal with issues back in 2007.  Members were informed that the Government had changed the goalposts.  It was noted that there had since been two planning appeals in Bracknell and Wokingham which had both been passed at the appeal stage.  The Lead Member for Planning went onto explain that as a result of these appeals their OAN had been raised. 

·         Councillor Hilton requested more clarity on Questions 10 (b) and 29 as it was not clear re: the real consequences.  The Planning Manager explained that it was similar to the current buffer and if the Council persistently under delivered they would have to meet 20%. 

·         Councillor Hilton stated that he felt the emphasis was just on numbers and that it depended if a building was in character and if it was it was agreed.  The Planning Manager explained that the Council was unable to force developers to build  the houses they had been given permission for as they would only develop housing if they felt they would get the return. 

·         That ancient woodland was proposed to be added but that no guidance was given as to what ‘ancient woodland’ was. 

·         The Chairman questioned the term ‘building for life’ to which the Planning Manager explained meant was to decide whether a building was sustainable for its lifetime via the criteria.

·         The Chairman stated that he felt this report was inline with the Councils / Members thinking. 

·         The Lead Member for Planning apologised to the Panel if they felt aggrieved that they had not been consulted on this but that it had been down to tight timescales hence was before them today. 

·         The Planning Manager explained that the Council could not consider schemes of less than ten dwellings so at least 10% should be on affordable dwellings (e.g. if twelve dwellings the Council would look for 30%).

·         That a plan every five years was considered ‘good practice’ and was not unusual.

·         Councillor Walters congratulated the Executive Director (Place) on a very good report. 

The Planning & Housing Overview & Scrutiny Panel by majority vote (Councillors Kellaway, Alexander, Hilton & Walters voted for & Councillor Beer voted against) agreed to recommend that Cabinet noted the report and:

i)          Strongly endorsed the RBWM submitted response to the Housing White Paper consultation which was detailed in Appendix A.

Councillor Beer on behalf of the Planning & Housing Overview & Scrutiny Panel commented that he was disgusted that this had not come before the Panel before it had been agreed and moved forward. 

Councillor Hilton also stated that Duty to Cooperate was no substitute for a Regional Plan / Strategy which Councillors Walters and Beer agreed with and endorsed.