Local Plans Working Group - expired May 2019
Wednesday 19 November 2014 5.00 pm
WEDNESDAY 19 NOVEMBER 2014
PRESENT: Councillors Christine Bateson (Chairman), Derek Wilson (Vice-Chairman), George Bathurst, Malcolm Beer, MJ Saunders, and Leo Walters.
Also Present: Councillors Clive Bullock and Wisdom DaCosta.
Also Present: Amy Appleyard (Thames Water), John Bastow (Windsor Neighbourhood Plan), Mark Mathews (Thames Water) and Claire Milne (Windsor Neighbourhood Plan).
Officers: Melvin Andrews, Sarah Ball, Ian Bellinger, Chris Hilton, Simon Hurrell, Tanya Leftwich, Kevin Mist, Laura Rheiter and Miles Thompson.
PART I
53/14 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for Absence were received from Councillors Geoff Hill, David Hilton and Claire Stretton.
54/14 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None.
55/14 MINUTES
- RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Part I Minutes of the meeting of the Working Group held on 6 November 2014 be approved.
The Planning Policy Manager, Miles Thompson, informed Members that the purpose of the report was to provide Members with an update in response to questions they raised at previous meetings in respect of the following two sites:
Broom Farm Estate, West Windsor
Members were informed that the feedback the Council had received from the land owner was that there were no plans to make the land available for redevelopment.
- RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the site not be recommended for inclusion in the next Preferred Options Consultation given the uncertainty about the availability of the site for redevelopment.
Members were informed that no approach to promote the site had been made by the landowner. The landowner’s intentions were unknown and they had not confirmed the land was available. It was noted that some of the site fell within the functional floodplain.
- RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the site not be recommended for inclusion in the next Preferred Options Consultation given the non- availability of the site for development and the flooding issues / risk.
57/14 NEW SITES PROMOTED THROUGH THE BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN PREFERRED OPTIONS CONSULTATION – WINDSOR LINK RAILWAY
The Planning Policy Manager informed Members that the purpose of the report was to provide Members with a summary of the proposed Windsor Link Railway (WLR) scheme and of the consultation responses received on the first Preferred Options Consultation.
Members were informed that the WLR had responded to the first Preferred Options Consultation and the Council had been in dialogue with them subsequently. It was noted that the recommendation in the report was that the following amendment to Preferred Policy Option RET2 (Maidenhead and Windsor Town Centres) was included in the second Preferred Options Consultation. Members were recommended that the following be added as a third paragraph to RET 2: ‘Within Windsor, particular support will be given to the invigoration of the retail, tourism, commercial, leisure, residential and transport aspects of the town.’ Members were also recommended that the following be added as preceding, supporting text: ‘There are major opportunities for refurbishment, redevelopment, development and environmental enhancement in and around the centre of Windsor. The Central Windsor Neighbourhood Plan for Business will be supported to prepare a neighbourhood plan that will improve the vitality and viability of the centre, will enhance the experience for resident, visitor and business users of the centre and will sustain the heritage and character of the town, and which may include proposals to link the two railway lines in the town. If required, the council may subsequently bring forward proposals for an Area Action Plan to address issues not covered by the neighbourhood plan.’
It was agreed by the Group that the reference in the supporting text to the WLR (which stated: “and which may include proposals to link the two railway lines in the town”) be deleted because it would now be dealt with more effectively in Preferred Policy Option INF2.
Councillor Wilson proposed a change to Preferred Policy Option INF2, on Sustainable Transport, and its supporting text. The change to the policy would be to add a fourth paragraph to those consulted on earlier this year. It was suggested that fourth paragraph should read: ‘The linking of the two rail lines in Windsor will be supported provided it has been demonstrated there would be no substantial harm to any designated heritage asset and the proposals are otherwise in accordance with the policies of the Borough Local Plan.’
It was agreed by the Group that the word ‘designated’ should be deleted from the suggested wording: ‘The linking of the two rail lines in Windsor will be supported provided it has been demonstrated there would be no substantial harm to any
And in the supporting text that preceded the Preferred Policy Option, to stop paragraph 15.2.4 at the end of line 4, to delete the remainder of the paragraph (and re-use most of it in a new paragraph, to follow it) except for the last sentence on White Waltham Airfield, which would be given its own paragraph immediately before 15.2.5, and to word a new paragraph immediately after 15.2.4 as follows: ‘In addition, there are early local proposals for a Windsor Link Railway (WLR – a line joining the two Windsor stations, connecting Slough to Waterloo via Windsor) and an alternative proposal for a Slough to Windsor tram link. Network Rail and South West Trains have concluded that the WLR is likely to have significant passenger demand and be viable. These proposals are at a very early feasibility stage. The Borough Council is offering support in principle for the objectives of a link railway provided that it can be demonstrated there would be no substantial harm to any designated historic assets. There are also a range of other issues on which it has yet to be demonstrated the link railway and associated developments would not result in unacceptable harm and these must be dealt with. Subject to these matters being addressed, more detailed proposals can be brought forward as part of the Central Windsor Neighbourhood Plan for Business or if required as part of proposals for a Area Action Plan by the council, and either may require the production of a development brief in the form of a Supplementary Planning Document, to provide further detailed guidance on the delivery of the WLR proposals.’
It was agreed by the Group that the word ‘Windsor’ should be added to the suggested section of the wording that read: ‘Subject to these matters being addressed, more detailed proposals can be brought forward as part of the Central Windsor Neighbourhood Plan for Business or if required as part of proposals for an Windsor Area Action Plan by the council, and either may require the production of a development brief in the form of a Supplementary Planning Document, to provide further detailed guidance on the delivery of the WLR proposals.’
It was agreed by the Group that the word ‘designated’ should be deleted from the suggested wording: ‘The Borough Council is offering support in principle for the objectives of a link railway provided that it can be demonstrated there would be no substantial harm to any
Councillor Saunders questioned whether the Council had received signed legal evidence that the opinion of Network Rail was supported by evidence. The Planning Policy Manager explained that the statement in his email to Councillor Wilson was the same statement as had been included in the First Preferred Options Consultation. The Head of Planning agreed to review the information and unless it could be clearly authenticated then to exclude the information from the supporting text.
John Bastow (Windsor Neighbourhood Plan) raised his concern about the reference to the Windsor Neighbourhood Plan as he had been advised it would not include strategic issues. The Planning Policy Manager explained that the strategic issue was raised in the BLP and that the BLP would set the context in which the Neighbourhood Plan could deal with the issue. It was noted that the Windsor Neighbourhood Plan would need to make reference to the strategic issues concerned.
- RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the content of this report be noted and agreed that the amendments to Preferred Policy Option RET2 and the supporting text preceding it, as set out at paragraphs 2.29 and 2.30 (subject to the below amendments), are brought into the public realm for the Second Preferred Options consultation, subject to the following:
- It was agreed by the Group that the reference in the supporting text to the WLR (which stated: “and which may include proposals to link the two railway lines in the town”) be deleted.
- It was agreed by the Group that a new para be added to INF2 to read: ‘The linking of the two rail lines in Windsor will be supported provided it has been demonstrated there would be no substantial harm to any heritage asset and the proposals are otherwise in accordance with the policies of the Borough Local Plan.’
- The group also agreed that the supporting text read: ‘The Borough Council is offering support in principle for the objectives of a link railway provided that it can be demonstrated there would be no substantial harm to any heritage assets.’
It was agreed by the Group that the word ‘Windsor’ should be added to the suggested section of the wording to the supporting text to Preferred Policy Option INF2 that read: ‘Subject to these matters being addressed, more detailed proposals can be brought forward as part of the Central Windsor Neighbourhood Plan for Business or if required as part of proposals for an Windsor Area Action Plan by the council, and either may require the production of a development brief in the form of a Supplementary Planning Document, to provide further detailed guidance on the delivery of the WLR proposals.’
Councillor Bathurst was invited to re-join the meeting which he did.
58/14 REPORT OF CONSULTATION: GREEN BELT AND COUNTRYSIDE CHARACTER
The Team Manager, Strategy and Plans informed Members that the purpose of the report was to update Members on the specific results of the Borough Local Plan Preferred Options Consultation on the Green Belt and Countryside Character chapter.
Members were informed that the Borough Local Plan Preferred Options Consultation document contained six policies dealing with the Green Belt and Countryside Character matters:
GBC1: Green Belt
GBC2: Countryside Character
GBC3: New Residential Development in the Green Belt
GBC4: Reuse and Replacement of Non-residential Buildings in the Green Belt
GBC5: Equestrian Development in the Green Belt
GBC6: Major Developed Sites in the Green Belt
It was noted that the policy approaches mirrored the Green Belt policies in the Adopted Local Plan with the exception of GBC2 which builds on the countryside character of the borough and translates key objectives into a number of principles that were suggested would be needed to be taken into account in assessing development proposals in the countryside. Members were informed that the report provided a commentary on the representations received in response to the Preferred Options consultation with respect to Preferred Policy Option GBC1-5. It was not considered necessary to include the above policies in the Second Preferred Options Consultation and that the representations made as a response to preferred policy approaches GBC1-GBC5 could be adequately addressed through the presentation of the fully worked up policies as part of the Regulation 19 (submission) consultation, later next year.
Councillor Saunders proposed and Councillor Wilson seconded that the Group agreed to the recommendation to note the report and for the representations made be used to respond to preferred policy approaches GBC1-GBC5 through the presentation of the fully worked up policies as part of the Regulation 19 (submission) consultation, later next year. Councillor Beer voted for this proposal whilst Councillors Walters, Bathurst and Bateson voted against it.
Councillor Walters asked for clarification about where the LA stood with regard to not having a Borough Local Plan (BLP) in place unlike other LA’s and how this would affect the appeals process / Inspectorate in the sense of whether the Council would be in a stronger or weaker position as a result of the officers’ recommendations with regard to the above policies. The Head of Planning, Simon Hurrell, explained that as the BLP emerged it would begin to carry weight; he said that there were two arguments to consider here, namely with (1) the legitimate concern of the Panel about the release of of any Green Belt at all but (2) to note that the rest of the Green Belt would continue to be fully safeguarded. Councillor Walters raised a concern as to whether an independent consultant would get the opportunity to look at this report and requested that this decision be deferred to allow this to take place.
Councillor Bateson stated that she felt she needed more time to consider this report and therefore proposed that this report be deferred to a later meeting, ideally held within 10-14 days time.
- RESOLVED :That this report be deferred to a later meeting which would take place within 10-14 days time.
(Councillors Bathurst, Bateson, Beer, Wilson and Walters voted in favour of the motion. Councillor Saunders voted against the motion).
The Principal Planning Officer, Ian Bellinger, informed Members that the purpose of the report was to update Members on the specific results of the Borough Local Plan Preferred Options Consultation document (January 2014) as they related to affordable housing policy.
Members were informed that the Preferred Policy HOU4 would lower the threshold at which a contribution to affordable housing from development proposals would be required to 5 dwellings (gross) or a site area of 0.16ha. The size of the contribution would remain at 30% of the dwellings provided. It was noted that Preferred Policy Option HOU5 would introduce a framework for considering where an exception to normal Green Belt planning policy might be made to address an identified rural need for affordable housing which could not be met elsewhere. The framework would be more flexible in terms of location but maintain the strict requirement to address local needs.
The Principal Planning Officer explained that the Framework required Local Plans to meet the full objectively assessed need for market and affordable housing as far as was consistent with the policies set out in the Framework. It was noted that the SHMA considered the future need for affordable housing and had found a continued need for social rented forms of affordable housing with lower income households unable to access/afford a mortgage as required by equity models. Members were informed that the Council’s preferred approach was therefore not supported by this and a robust evidence based case would need to be presented at examination to justify the Council taking a different approach to the Framework. The Principal Planning Officer went onto explain that officers would engage with the Housing Options Team on how the commitment was currently being applied and the findings of this discussion would be reported to a future meeting of the Local Plans Working Group.
Councillor Saunders stated that this had been raised at a past Corporate O&S Panel and that he had been assured by the Leader that this would be addressed (re: KPI’s in this area). Councillor Saunders expressed his concern that if the Council was examined by the Inspectorate he felt they would be unlikely to satisfy the requirement for affordable housing. Councillor Saunders flagged up para 2.15 in the report as an area for concern.
Councillor Wilson informed Members that the current planning policy stated that affordable housing kicked in at 15 dwellings and he raised his concern that if this figure was lowered it could potentially put off property investors coming to the Royal Borough and make some housing sites unviable. It was noted that whilst reducing the figure to 5 would put the Royal Borough in line with some other neighbouring LA’s he did have some reservations which Councillors Bathurst and Walters echoed.
Councillor Bathurst left the meeting.
Councillor Beer stated that he felt the figure should be reduced as there were windfall sites available and that he would like to see more two and three bedroom houses built in the Royal Borough as opposed to five and six bedroom houses.
Councillor Bateson requested the cohort figure for Appendix B question 24 (45 responses), Members were informed that approximately 2000 people had responded to the consultation in total.
Councillor Saunders questioned why this was being revisited as there had already been three debates held on it to date. Members were informed that Councillor Saunders believed the figure should be reduced to the neighbouring authorities’ figure.
Councillor Saunders left the meeting
Members were informed that whilst this subject did not need to be dealt with in the second and third consultations it would need to be decided before the Borough Local Plan was submitted. It was suggested that the Head of Strategic Commissioning for Adult Social Care and Housing, Nick Davies, be invited to attend a future meeting.
- RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the response from the Housing Options Team on how the commitment was currently being applied and the findings of the discussion would be reported to a future meeting of the Local Plans Working Group in January / February 2015.
- RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the remainder of the meeting whilst discussion takes place on following items 9-13 on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 1-7 of part I of Schedule 12A of the Act.