Members agreed that the order of business would be varied to take the item ’Election of the Chairman and Vice Chairman’ after the business items had been transacted. The Panel would elect a Chairman for the duration of the meeting and seek to elect a Chairman and Vice Chairman once all Members had arrived. It was agreed to do so, as the time of the meeting had been bought forward and some Members had advised that they were running late.

It was agreed that the Panel would agree upon a Chair for the meeting as the order of business had been varied.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Councillor Kellaway be appointed the Chairman for the duration of the meeting until a Chairman for the Municipal year was elected later in the meeting.

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Sharpe (Substitute Member not available).

To receive any declarations of interest.

None.

To confirm the Part I minutes of the meeting of 18^th May 2018.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the minutes of the last meeting held on the 16^th May were approved as a true and correct record subject to;

·         That ‘principle’ member be amended to ‘principal’.

·         That further clarification was to be sought and circulated in reference to the following wording-“It was also confirmed that brownfield sites could not be built upon and that sites were not to be allocated to on unbuilt brownfield land or settlement areas.”

ACTION- That all amendments be circulated and agreed via email. 

To consider and discuss the report as titled above.

Ashley Smith, Deputy Head of Planning outlined the above report. It was outlined that there would be a three year target in place which was ambitious and that two conservation area officers had been recruited. It was highlighted that some conservation areas that had not been at the forefront of delivery plans had now been through appraisals and referenced in the report. Members were happy to see that some areas that had not been subject to assessment for twenty years had now been included in the first tranche of appraisals and that it now provided protection for these areas, which included Mill Lane Church area in Clewer and Holyport. Councillor Walters highlighted that he had initially set up the conservation areas in RBWM and that this had been a positive move for the borough.

Members discussed implementation times and it was confirmed that the report outlined delivery and implementation times with Cookham already being underway with SANG development. Members were reminded that a press release had been issued and did not form part of the formal consultation. The formal consultation had included letters being written to all conservation area residents and communication of delivery would be programmed as individual areas were affected. 

Members highlighted that the use of “ local development framework” was outdated and should be replaced by the emerging Borough Local Plan. It was highlighted that these comments should be taken back to the Cabinet for consideration.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the report be noted and authorisation be given to the Head of Planning to commence a prioritised programme of review ( as outlined in the report) and that the criteria for the designation of new areas/deletions to existing conservation areas and a checklist for identifying local buildings of interest be agreed and noted.

To consider and note the above titled report.

Ashley Smith, Deputy Head of Planning outlined the report. It was highlighted that the Thames Basin Heath had been a problem area and that there had been a freeze on development for the surrounding Surrey Heath area. Natural England recommendations were that SANGS should be provided as a means to avoid damage to protected species and areas. It was also noted that the size of a SANG  relied upon how many houses or whether development could be mitigated. Members were informed that there were two different types of SANG, bespoke and strategic SANG. Details of these were outlined in the report. It was highlighted that there would be an increase to Allen’s Field alongside the SANG development which would support the southern development of RBWM.

Members were reminded that the SANG had to meet specific criteria and that there must be a large walking loop, within a natural setting. Members were told that it would cost approximately £500,000 to set up a SANG. Members queried why the farm area in Cox green had been purchased and why this could not be utilised for SANG purpose. Councillor D Wilson highlighted that the Cox Green farm area had been purchased for leisure and sports pitches. Ashley Smith outlined that SANGS must be within a 5kn radius of development. It was also noted that there had been a lease arrangement with the land owner for the intended SANG. Members queried whether there could be a SANG development for the upcoming golf course redevelopment and it was confirmed that there were no dedicated plans for this. Councillor Beer noted that Chobham Common was an area where protected species thrived and that this should form part of the SANG. It was confirmed that this area already formed part of the Thames Basin Heath area.

It was noted that the planned delivery surrounding Allen’s Field was ambitious and officers were confirmed that the planned delivery targets would be met for the upcoming period. It was estimated that there were 109 dwellings that the SANG would mitigate. It was confirmed that the finalised plans for Allen’s Field were being looked at and worked upon. Members were concerned that land owners could demand higher rates for land and that RBWM would be subject to paying premium prices. The Panel were informed that land that owners put forward for use would have been overlooked for development or may not have been fit for particular use and it would benefit them to incorporate their land as part of the SANG. The Council would be able to recoup costs and could carry out building development on their behalf, both raising monies for RBWM and increasing revenue whilst being cost effective. Councillor Hunt stated that the Council should aim to purchase freehold as opposed to leasehold where possible to ensure continuity for the future. Russell O’Keefe clarified that he had a duty to achieve best value for the borough and that options relating to freehold and leasehold had been considered. It was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

To comment and consider the above titled report.

 Ashley Smith, Deputy Head of Planning outlined the report to the Panel. The report outlined the infrastructure required to underpin planned development regarding the published Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) which would support the submitted Borough Local Plan (BLPSV). Members were reminded that the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), charging schedule and a Regulation 123 list had been introduced on the 1^st September 2016. The Panel were informed that the CIL was a charge on new floor space which had arisen from developments in residential or retail use and any money collected to deliver infrastructure required to support new development in and around the Borough.

Panel Members were told that the Infrastructure Delivery Group (IDG) would seek to decide how the CIL money accumulated from development would be spent around the borough. The working group would consist of Members and Officers who would be looking at decisions of where the money could be spent. Members queried why some parishes received 25% of money raised from development as opposed to 15% and it was clarified that parishes that had a neighbourhood plan which had been adopted covering their area would receive the higher percentage. It was also highlighted that the Local Planning Authorities operating CIL would pass on the relevant percentages of money raised from development within a parish/town council area directly to them. It was confirmed that section 106 agreements would still be used to secure affordable housing provision or payment in lieu of provision and other non-financial requirements. Members were informed that any money from CIL would be spent on items categorised within the Community Infrastructure List. Section 106 monies would need to be spent on directly relevant projects within the community, for example, libraries.

Members were concerned that developers would have to pay both the CIL and Section 106 contributions which could be expensive. It was highlighted that there were some discounts available to developers dependant on the number of units they wished to build. Members were also told that comparatively, the amount would be similar to what developers had paid previously.  The Panel were told that the viability study and changes from the initial proposal consultation would be published over the upcoming months. It was highlighted that the Infrastructure Delivery Group would be reviewing the 123 Regulation list and would look to programme manage the delivery of infrastructure projects. The Panel were informed that there would be information and knowledge sharing events and Members were encouraged to take part. Dates of these events would be shared with Members shortly.

Members discussed the need for parish councils to be communicated to in relation to CIL monies received. Ashley Smith confirmed that figures of CIL monies and where the money had been spent would be published. Councillor Dr L Evans raised concerns that money that had been accumulated under CIL in Windsor had been spent in Maidenhead to fund projects and that this may cause concern for residents. It was clarified that there was a good audit trail of decision  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Russell O’Keefe outlined the report to the Panel. The Panel were informed that the performance report set out an overview on the council’s performance for the 2017/18 year. The report included progress against summary indicators along with contextual information about resources, key projects and ambitions. It was highlighted that the figures shown as negative were in fact, when measured nationally better than many local authorities. Members felt that targets should be set differently to highlight the good work of the borough.

It was highlighted that some of the target thresholds set were high and could be perceived as unrealistic. Members were happy to see good performance results overall and that RBWM had performed well nationally despite cuts to funding for the authority. Councillor Clark commented that It would be more useful to show comparative data figure for RBWM performances against national performance statistics. Members felt that the document was a challenging read and that if possible it should be condensed. It was also noted that the font was not accessible and was too small for readers. Members queried where the targets referenced withi the report originated from and it was confirmed that they were taken from national guidance and also set from strategic performance indicators.

Councillor Dr L Evans stated that some residents may not be concerned with internally set RBWM targets but that their interest and focus would be on how the borough had performed against neighbouring authorities and against the national picture. Councillor Beer highlighted that the document should be resident centric and that some targets when read by residents could be influenced by their own interactions or experiences with the Council; especially when they have had negative experiences. At the conclusion of the discussion Members noted the report.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY; That the report be noted and:

i)             That the progress was noted towards meeting the council’s strategic objectives.

ii)            That the Annual report 2017/18 be endorsed and reviewed at a meeting of the Full Council.

iii)           That the Managing Director and Principal Members progress improvement actions for areas that are off target. 

To elect a Chairman and Vice Chairman for the municipal year.

The Panel had earlier agreed to vary the order of business, therefore this item was taken after all other business of the meeting had been transacted.

Councillor Leo Walters proposed himself as the Chairman for the upcoming Municipal year and was seconded by Cllr L Evans.

Councillor Richard Kellaway was proposed as Chairman by Councillor Hunt and seconded by Councillor Clark.

RESOLVED BY MAJORITY: That Councillor Kellaway be elected as the Chairman of the Planning and Housing Overview & Scrutiny Panel for the Municipal Year 2018/19.

(Councillors Clark, Hunt, and Beer voted in favour of the motion. Councillors Walters voted against the motion. There were no abstentions).

Councillor Hunt was proposed as the Vice Chair by Councillor Kellaway and seconded by Councillor Clark.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Councillor Maureen Hunt be elected as the Vice-Chairman of the Planning and Housing Overview & Scrutiny Panel for the Municipal Year 2018/19.

As part of the Forward Plan the following items were to be scheduled for future meetings;

·         Vicus Way Car Park

·         Plan Making-Traveller Local Plan

·         Borough Local Plan- Submission Version

Dates of future meetings as below:

·         21^st August 2018 at 7pm in the Council Chamber

·         18^th October 2018 at 7pm in the Council Chamber

·         4^th December 2018 at 7pm in the Council Chamber

·         29^th January 2019 at 7pm in Desborough 4

·         16^th April 2019 at 7pm in the Council Chamber

Members noted the following future meeting dates (7pm start):

·         21^st August 2018- Council Chamber

·         18^th October 2018- Council Chamber

·         4^th December 2018- Council Chamber

·         29^th January 2018- Desborough 4

·         16^th April 2018- Council Chamber