To receive and consider the above report.

Members received an updated version of the Local Development Scheme (LDS) which covered the timetable of the Borough Local Plan. Members noted that:

·        A new paragraph had been added to explain the background to plan making.

·        The LDS included a list of current Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) and new ones to come

·        A joint waste and minerals plan was being developed with Wokingham and Bracknell; there was no political appetite from Reading to be involved

·        A separate Gypsy and Traveller Local Plan (not an SPD) would be developed

·        The Statement of Community Involvement had been revised

·        The LDS would be reviewed every year

The Team Leader – Borough Local Plan explained that an SPD was adopted by the local authority but, unlike a local plan, was not examined in public. SPDs had to be consulted on and be in a prescribed format. The purpose of an SPD was to illustrate how policies should be implemented and to allow people to make successful planning applications.  SPDs did not allocate site or make policy.

Councillor Wilson commented that a borough-wide design guide had been desired for a long time. It would cover amenity space including areas around a development.

In relation to the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area SPD Councillor Hilton commented that by the time a new SANG was published, capacity would have been reached therefore it would be important to allow a new SANG to be added without too much difficulty. The Team Leader – Borough Local Plan agreed; a SANG generally needed a planning application. It was noted that the Allen’s Field application was taken to Cabinet.

Councillor Beer asked whether the council was adequately covered in relation to flooding or would an SPD be needed? The Team Leader – Borough Local Plan responded that the requirements were in not in the gift of the local authority and had to be referred to the Environment Agency. The council would do as much as it could within the restrictions. It was not proposed at this stage to have a separate flooding SPD.

Members considered the timetables for the Borough Local Plan and various SPDs as detailed on pages 19-24 of the report. During discussions it was highlighted that:

·        All remaining saved policies of the Local Plan (2003) would be in place until a new Borough Local Plan was adopted. Recent court cases demonstrated that no weight could be given to the emerging Local Plan until it was formally adopted.

ACTION: The Team Leader – Borough Local Plan to send Cllr Walters copies of recent High Court cases.

·        In relation to CIL, the council was awaiting the Inspector’s decision on Tandridge District Council which was in a similar position as it did not have an up to date Local Plan in place.

·        The government’s Starter Homes Initiative was still being consulted upon and therefore the definition of Affordable Housing could widen

·        Members of the Group would be given an early opportunity to comment on the Borough-wide design guide

·        A completed Statement of Community Involvement was required for submission therefore the timetable of June 2016 would need to be met.

A representative of the Windsor Neighbourhood Plan group commented that the group had planned for an Article 14 consultation in September 2016. It would be important to make it clear to the public that there were two separate consultations taking place. A communication plan would be useful.

The Team Leader – Borough Local Plan explained that Neighbourhood Plans had to be in conformity with strategic policies of the Local Plan. Not all policies in the Local Plan would be strategic. A Neighbourhood Plan group had the freedom to determine what the Neighbourhood Plan contained.  Councillor Hilton commented that he had mapped the Ascot & the Sunnings Neighbourhood Plan policies with the emerging policies of the Borough Local Plan and had found no areas that would need to be overturned. The Team Leader – Borough Local Plan commented that it was not the case that the Local Plan would overturn a Neighbourhood Plan. Neighbourhood Plans would need to be in conformity with the strategic policies of the Local Plan. The Local Plan dealt with matters that were not all strategic therefore total conformity was not required. If there was conflict, the most recent plan would take precedence. If a Neighbourhood Plan was in place before a Local Plan, the Neighbourhood Plan may be considered out of date if it was not in conformity. If it was to be amended, it would need to go back to referendum.

Councillor Bathurst raised Arden Road as a site in the Plan for strategic use that may cause conflict. The Interim Planning Policy Manager commented that it was up to the Neighbourhood Plan group to decide which policies to put in; the only test was in general conformity with the strategic policies of the Local Plan. At Regulation 16 the council would make its representations to the examiner on the conformity. The final decision was made by the referendum.

ACTION: A list of all policies considered to be strategic to be sent to all Members.

A representative of the Windsor Neighbourhood Plan group requested that the list also be sent to all Neighbourhood Plan groups. The Team Leader – Borough Local Plan commented that the issue would be discussed in Part II and she would let Neighbourhood Plan groups know the outcome.

ACTION: The Team Leader – Borough Local Plan to inform Neighbourhood Plan groups in response to the request above.

Councillor Wilson commented that he would like to see the Gypsy and Traveller Local Plan be brought forward reasonably quickly after submission of the Local Plan. The Team Leader – Borough Local Plan explained that there was an error on the document as dates had been transposed. She would look at resourcing implications.

The Team Leader – Borough Local Plan commented that between 50-70 councils were expected to submit a Local Plan by September 2016. Those that did not submit before March 2017 would be subject to government intervention.