To receive any apologies for absence

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Phillip Bicknell, MJ Saunders and Claire Stretton.

The Chairman informed everyone present that the meeting was being recorded.

To receive any declarations of interest

There were no declarations of interest.

To consider the minutes of the previous meeting held on 1 October 2015

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Part I minutes of the meetings held on 1 October 2015 be approved.

The Chairman explained that Items 4 and 5 would be spilt as they contained both public and private information.  It was proposed that Item 6 be addressed first followed by the Part I sections of Items 4 and 5.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the order of business as detailed in the agenda be varied.

To receive a verbal update

The Vice-Chair, Councillor Derek Wilson, provided Members with a verbal update. He explained that a meeting of the Member Reference Group had taken place on 25 October 2015 at Hampstead House. It was noted that at the meeting the objectively assessed need (OAN) figures had been announced on the 20 October 2015 and were noted as follows:

•           Royal Borough figure was 712.

•           West Berkshire figure was 665.

•           Reading figure was 699.

•           Slough figure was 927.

•           South Bucks figure was 376.

•           Wokingham figure was 856.

•           Bracknell Forest figure was 635.

It was noted that Slough was felt to have the same sort of pressures as the Royal Borough so they may well want to have discussions with the Council if they felt they were unable to meet their need and see whether the borough could take on some of the pressure. 

PLEASE NOTE THIS ITEM WAS MOVED INTO PART II ON 6/11/15 for the following reason:

Not for publication by virtue ofParagraph 3 of Part I of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

The Chairman welcomed the Borough Local Plan Team Leader, Robert Paddison, to the Royal Borough.  It was noted that Robert was a permanent member of staff.

Councillor Beer arrived.

The Director of Development and Regeneration, Chris Hilton, referred Members to the timetable / process map in front of them and explained that the Council was progressing with Option A. 

Members noted two key points which were:

•      Giving ourselves until the end of November to produce the sites list which will give a likely indication of what the numbers will be. 

•      Then December and January will be used to provide the evidence base with the view of getting the plan submitted to the LPWG on the 15 February for the meeting scheduled on the 22 February, then onto the relevant Overview & Scrutiny Panels and onto Cabinet on the 30 September 2016. 

The Director of Development and Regeneration went onto mention the subject of resourcing and explained that in order to reach the target had taken on some additional staff.  It was noted that as a result of the restructure in April / May it had been decided that two more Team Leaders were needed in order to drive multiple projects forward.  It was noted that Robert Paddison had been appointed to lead on the Borough Local Plan and that the second member of staff would be recruited to the Neighbourhood Planning role.  Members were informed that the two new appointments would enable the Team Manager - Strategy and Plans, Sarah Ball, to concentrate on planning policy implementation, including major sites, planning briefs and SPDs.. 

It was noted that the Leader had then advised that if more resources were needed to hit the timescale then the Director of Development and Regeneration should ask, which he did.  It was noted that some funds had been allocated from the Development Fund which would be spent on two extra planning policy officers  for three to four months.  Including  a part-time Project Manager  to help with project planning and risk registers for approximately three months. 

Councillor Bathurst arrived.

Members were informed that it had been proposed that Local Plans Working Groups would take place every three weeks but that given the tight timescales and heavy workloads detailed policy documents would not be available at each meeting but would be circulated as and when necessary. 

It was noted that whilst the Conservation Officer was due to leave the Council but that the position would not be left vacant. 

To consider the above report.

PLEASE NOTE THIS ITEM WAS AMENDED FROM A REPORT TO A VERBAL UPDATE ON 6/11/15

The Borough Local Plan Team Leader explained that he would give a general outline of what the requirement was for the Local Authority.  It was noted that the duty to co-operate replaced regional planning and that it was up to individual local authorities to work out key statutory cross boundary issues e.g. housing numbers and locations.  Members were informed that if Local Authorities could not meet their OAN figures they had to work with other Local Authorities to try to meet that need and come to some sort of agreement.  The Borough Local Plan Team Leader went on to explain that the process needed to be clearly evidenced and a positive approach was needed to seek as much agreement as possible.  It was noted that whilst agreement was not necessarily needed amongst officers it could be escalated to Members – the key was appropriate engagement rather than agreement.

Members were informed that currently the Council was working across Berkshire and part of South Bucks on a retail study. 

The Chairman explained that when the Council was doing its housing needs numbers it worked with other Berkshire Local Authorities but they had wanted to do it faster than we had.  It was noted that consequently the Royal Borough had wanted more time.  The Chairman questioned what would happen if the Council asked other Local Authorities to be a bit quicker when it came to the duty to co-operate and they refused.  The Borough Local Plan Team Leader explained that there was a significant element of risk at examination if that happened which could potentially slow the Councils submission down.  The Borough Local Plan Team Leader stated that the Council and other Local Authorities would need to look at it as a mutual benefit and work in co-operation as they all had a 2017 target to meet. 

The Director of Development and Regeneration stated that he hoped to have a detailed plan with regard to the duty to co-operate in the next seven to ten days and would circulate it to Members ASAP.

The Borough Local Plan Team Leader explained that it was recommended practice (duty to co-operate) to involve Members from the very start which the Royal Borough had done.  It was noted that as a result of the list of tasks that had been circulated to Members a number of responses had been received.   Members were informed that the responses needed to be filtered and prioritised.  The Borough Local Plan Team Leader went on to explain that a time limit, as requested by the Chairman, could be requested.

o   ACTION: The Director of Development and Regeneration to circulate to Members a detailed plan with regard to the duty to co-operate once available.

To consider passing the following resolution:-

“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 item 8 on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 1-7 of part I of Schedule 12A of the Act"

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 took place on following items 8-10 on the grounds that they involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 1-7 of part I of Schedule 12A of the Act.

To consider the Part II minutes of the meeting held on 1 October 2015.

Not for publication by virtue of Paragraph 1-7 of Part I of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Part II minutes of the meeting held on 1 October 2015 be approved.

It was noted that a meeting with Thames Water had been arranged for the 17 November 2015.  Councillor Beer requested that he attend the meeting with Thames Water along with Councillor Saunders.

o   ACTION: Officers to update Councillor Saunders of the meeting date with Thames Water.

Not for publication by virtue of Paragraph 3 of Part I of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

The Director of Development and Regeneration stated that he wanted to ensure everyone present understood the risks and issues associated with Plan A.  Members were referred to the programme update spreadsheet in front of them and particular attention was raised about the following risks:

• SHMA - That the development industry was likely to challenge the assumptions underpinning the SHMA on household formation rates and market adjustments to reflect economic need and affordability considerations.  It was noted that this was considered a standard risk and would be moved to the bottom on the spreadsheet in future.
• FEMA - That the programme provided for a draft plan being prepared ahead of the FEMA. It was noted that if the FEMA identified a need for employment land which was not catered for in the draft Plan then it risked being found unsound.  The Director of Development and Regeneration explained that the planning risk or impact would be to try to anticipate what the FEMA was likely to say and hope that the Royal Borough were somewhere near.  It was noted that a close working relationship with NLP (who were preparing the FEMA on behalf of the LEP) was crucial.  The Director of Development and Regeneration went onto explain that the Council was meeting NLP on 12 November 2015 to discuss how workload could be shared and to commission research etc in order to get ahead of the game.
• HELAA - Failure to agree a site assessment methodology between Berkshire authorities.  It was noted that no responses had been received from some other Council’s on methodology and that there were resourcing challenges and capacity issues: IT, Staff, Project Management.  The Director of Development and Regeneration explained that comments on the draft were received week commencing 2 November and there was some disagreement particularly regarding the Green Belt.
• Maidenhead Town Centre - Potential issues with viability, land assembly & design.  Development approach was not supported by stakeholders.  The Director of Development and Regeneration explained that the planning risk or impact would be that sites were not deliverable or not delivered in a timely manner within the plan period and that the Plan was found unsound due to lack of housing numbers to meet need.  Members were informed that this would result in reviewing all land options, engaging with neighbourhood planning groups and planning policy and writing up LSH study.
• LMWG engagement - Insufficient time for LMWG engagement in the detailed policy writing and site allocations.  May lead to last minute changes in direction.  The Director of Development and Regeneration explained that robust programme plan/timetabling and clear indication of dependencies on input from LMWG would be the action required.

In the ensuing discussion the following points were noted:

Ø  That a key risk around affordable housing could be getting a policy agreed between Members and getting one signed off.  The Director of Development and Regeneration explained that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

Not for publication by virtue of Paragraph 3 of Part I of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

The Director of Development and Regeneration stated that he only had a few points to add as he had covered most of this item in the previous item.  Members were referred to the programme update spreadsheet in front of them and particular attention was raised about the following risk:

§  Duty to co-operate - Limited time between completion of evidence base and submission to LPWF. Discussions in advance of completion of evidence base would be general (no evidence to support intentions) and those AFTER LPWG could be viewed as predetermined.  Members noted the Plan would be found unsound due to a failure to undertake the duty to co-operate to an acceptable standard.  The Director of Development and Regeneration explained that mitigation would be robust planning of DTC meetings being prepared (the three month gap) but that the risk remained.

Councillor Hilton questioned the groupings of the Local Authorities and whether South Bucks agreed they were in a group with the Royal Borough and if so, were they prepared to engage with regard to the duty to co-operate.  The Vice-Chairman explained that South Bucks did not feel they should be part of the East Berkshire group and wanted to be grouped with the Chilterns and Buckinghamshire.  The Team Manager - Strategy and Plans explained that G L Hearn (SHMA consultants) had concluded the groupings for Berkshire SHMA  but that there was an overlap when it came to the groupings which meant that South Bucks were already recognised as being part of the Buckinghamshire SHMA. 

Councillor Hilton questioned what would happen if Slough had a totally different view on the Green Belt than the Royal Borough.  The Team Manager - Strategy and Plans explained that Slough remained very aggressive and had made it clear that they would object if the Royal Borough  approached them for help with the OAN figure.  It was noted that the Royal Borough were in discussions with Slough which should be seen as a positive.  Members were also informed that the Team Manager - Strategy and Plans had met with Heathrow today and stated that the onus was on them to engage with the Borough if necessary.  Members were informed that Slough had to date not included anything in their Plan regarding the Heathrow expansion.

o    ACTION: The Team Manager - Strategy and Plans to provide Members with the OAN figures for the Buckinghamshire Group as a matter of interest.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Local Plans Working Group agreed with the duty to co-operate timetable put before them.