a)    Tom Denniford of Bisham & Cookham Ward will ask the Lead Member for Planning the following question:

The Council has recently been successful in taking enforcement action in respect of a chicken farm off Lighlands Lane, Cookham.  Yet, as the councillor knows, for more than three years residents in the vicinity of a similar operation in Winter Hill Road have had to endure rats, odours and flies and general damage to their amenities. 

What, in planning terms, is the difference between these two sites?

b)   Andrew Hill of Boyn Hill ward will ask the Principal Member for Public Health and Communications the following question:

In the alleged public consultation on partly disposing of Braywick Park, RBWM insisted on physical attendance at the town hall to see the documents, and refused to place those documents onto the consultation website. Whilst lawyers claimed no mandatory requirement to do so, e.g. under 20(6) Equality Act 2010, why would RBWM make it so difficult for residents to engage?

c)    Andrew Hill of Boyn Hill ward will ask the Leader of the Council the following question:

On June 29th Councillor Dudley announced on twitter that the Monitoring Officer had determined "no breach" of the Code of Conduct by Councillor Saunders. However I could find no official determination published on RBWM's CoC webpage - so I don't know what he was cleared of. Who told you there had been a determination of "no breach" and when?

(A Member responding to a question shall be allowed up to five minutes to reply to the initial question and up to two minutes to reply to a supplementary question. The questioner shall be allowed up to 1 minute to put the supplementary question)

a)    The Mayor asked the following question to the Lead Member for Planning on behalf of Tom Denniford of Bisham & Cookham Ward who was unable to attend the meeting:

The Council has recently been successful in taking enforcement action in respect of a chicken farm off Lighlands Lane, Cookham.  Yet, as the councillor knows, for more than three years residents in the vicinity of a similar operation in Winter Hill Road have had to endure rats, odours and flies and general damage to their amenities. 

What, in planning terms, is the difference between these two sites?

Councillor D. Wilson responded that whilst it was accepted that the two units were similar in size and agricultural operations, he emphasised the long held principle in planning terms that each case was based on it own merits.  Notwithstanding this, there were some distinguishable differences in how the local authority reached conclusions in assessing the respective developments, namely the buildings being erected on land at Strande Lane being within a functional flood plain and the Council finding it expedient to take enforcement action.  It was important to note that the Council had found the large structure on land at Strande Lane and metal container to be development that required planning permission as defined under Section 55 of the Act. 

Conversely, the polytunnels on land at Winter Hill were not be considered development that was permitted development or development that required planning permission, as its did not appear to meet the a three-stage test as set out in Cardiff Rating Authority and Cardiff Assessment Committee v Guest Keen and Baldwin's Iron and Steel Co.Ltd [1949], and refined in in Skerrits of Nottingham v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2000], namely size, permanence and physical attachment to the ground.  This conclusion was reviewed by the then Development Control Manager in January 2015 following a meeting with residents, Ward Members and the Parish Council in the summer of 2014 at which he had also been present. Although it should be noted that each unit also had other forms of development, namely feed silos and some hard surface, these were considered to be permitted development under Part 6 of the General Planning Development Order.

The Mayor, on behalf of Mr Denniford asked the following supplementary questions:

More than three years ago you attended a meeting to discuss the Winter Hill road site.  at the time the then Head of Planning said it was not currently expedient to take any action.  But the borough has recently been successful in a virtually identical situation at Lightlands Lane.  It is important that the borough is seen to be acting in a fair and even-handed manner.  When, therefore, will the planning department stop prevaricating and take action at Winter Hill Road?

Councillor D. Wilson responded that, to try and give some indication of how officers considered the matter of expediency, the current Government Guidance on taking enforcement action was contained in the National Planning Policy Framework which made it clear that councils, as Local Planning Authorities, should not condone the wilful breach of planning law, but must apply discretion in applying their enforcement powers, taking formal action only where they consider proportionate. This of course only applied where a breach of planning control had occurred. 

Land between Lightlands Lane and Strande View Walk, Strande Lane, Cookham, was an agricultural unit less than 5 Hectares in size.  The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order 2015 (Part 6, B) provided the relevant legislation in the planning context to control development.  The site was located within the Green Belt and lay within a functional flood plain which meant there was a high probability of flooding.

Land adjacent to Honey House, Winter Hill Road, Maidenhead was an agricultural unit also less than 5 Hectares in size and was subject to the same planning control in terms of the planning legislation.  The site was similarly located within the Green Belt but not within an area liable to flood.

b)   Andrew Hill of Boyn Hill ward asked the Principal Member for Public Health and Communications the following question:

By way of background, Mr Hill explained there was a tiny advert in the Maidenhead Advertiser on 8 June 2017 that referred to a plot of land in Braywick Park. Members of the public were required to go to the Town Hall, where you would get two pieces of paper, neither of which stated why the open space was being disposed off. When he had contacted the lawyers they were unsure as to why it was being sold off and as a consequence it was agreed to extend the deadline by 14 days.

In the alleged public consultation on partly disposing of Braywick Park, RBWM insisted on physical attendance at the town hall to see the documents, and refused to place those documents onto the consultation website. Whilst lawyers claimed no mandatory requirement to do so, e.g. under 20(6) Equality Act 2010, why would RBWM make it so difficult for residents to engage?

Councillor Carroll responded that there had been no intention to make it difficult for residents. As part of the preparatory work for the plans to re-provide the Magnet Leisure Centre and to provide a long term permanent location for the Forest Bridge School at the Braywick Park site, the council followed the statutory process was required, to inform residents that the council was considering removing a piece of land from public open space to allow for the shared use by the school and public. This process allowed residents to make comments on the proposals and to see which parcel of land was involved.

As a statutory process the council was obliged to advertise in the local newspaper for two consecutive weeks, which had been done. This process followed the guidance that the council’s solicitors provided and was in line with the practice the council and others had followed for a number of years. The process also required that a copy of the site plan showing the parcel of land be made available from the Town Hall.

A good number of comments were received from residents via the statutory public notice process, and all the comments were reviewed by the relevant officers and the council did write back to all those who commented with its response and conclusions.

However, the council appreciated that it could go further to make it easier for even wider community engagement and in future it had already been agreed that details of the statutory process would be included on the website and the documents would be made available electronically, as well as placing these adverts in the local paper as required by the statutory arrangements.

The council was happy to provide the plan showing the space involved on this occasion electronically, but was not aware that it was specifically asked for. The time available for comments to be received was extended in response to a request.

By way of a supplementary, Mr Hill commented that the apparent determination to deter residents from responding to consultations had made itself manifest even more strongly in the approach to Regulation 19 of the Borough Local Plan consultation. He asked if Councillors were aware a leading QC had provided written opinion that this approach was unlawful and the consultation should be abandoned and recommenced.

Councillor Dudley responded that the barrister’s opinion that the council had received, which was actually from someone who was connected with the Campaign for Rural England, was being reviewed by the borough’s barrister and a written opinion would be received at the beginning of the following week. The council would issue this on the website and would also respond to a piece of correspondence from the Secretary of State (Department of Communities and Local Government, which would go alongside the opinion in the interests of transparency.

c)    Andrew Hill of Boyn Hill ward asked the Leader of the Council the following question:

On June 29th Councillor Dudley announced on twitter that the Monitoring Officer had determined "no breach" of the Code of Conduct by Councillor Saunders. However I could find no official determination published on RBWM's CoC webpage - so I don't know what he was cleared of. Who told you there had been a determination of "no breach" and when?

Councillor Dudley responded that the Monitoring Officer made an initial assessment, consulted with the Independent Person and decided not to proceed with the complaint.  He understood that this was an end to the matter.  There was no need for any official determination to be published on RBWM’s webpage.  The Monitoring Officer informed the Managing Director that she would not be proceeding with the complaint on 29 June 2017 and he had received an email confirming this and had commented on Twitter as it was a matter of public interest. The complaint was dealt with under the initial assessment process under the council’s Code of Conduct and did not proceed to a formal determination of whether there was a breach or not. 

By way of a supplementary, Mr Hill asked a question relating to an earlier code of conduct complaint.

Councillor Dudley responded that, given the question related to a different complaint than the one referred to in the original question, if Mr Hill wished to write to him with the details, he would respond.

As per Part 2C paragraph 9.3 of the Constitution, the Mayor had agreed to accept the following urgent question:

d)   Paul Serjeant of Oldfield ward asked the Lead Member for Planning the following question:

Residents were sent an email on July 14th informing us of a new "call for sites". No announcement of any such impending consultation was made at the Borough Local Plan (BLP) Extraordinary meeting on June 19th (or elsewhere). Given that the BLP has already been approved for submission can RBWM explain why this sudden "call for sites" is required?

Councillor D. Wilson responded the Council was undertaking a ‘Call for Sites’ that encouraged developers, landowners, and other interested parties to promote sites for development. Sites could be promoted at any time, but a regular ‘Call for Sites’ ensured the latest information was submitted, in order to update council databases. The last ‘Call for Sites’ was undertaken in 2015.

The information submitted helped to inform the Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) which was a technical study of all potential housing, economic and retail sites within the borough. The HELAA attempted to establish realistic assumptions about the number of homes, employment and retail floorspace that the land could yield and the timeframe within which it was likely to come forward. The identification of a site in the HELAA did not necessarily mean that the site would be allocated for development, or that planning permission would be granted. The information submitted may result in changes to the deliverability classification of sites assessed in the HELAA (2016), and which would inform the latest version of the HELAA.  

The Borough Local Plan had been published under Regulation 19 of the (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012. The information submitted during the ‘Call for Sites’ would be considered in relation to the sites proposed in the Borough Local Plan, and, subject to the wishes of the Planning Inspector, may be discussed at the Examination of the Borough Local Plan.

The updated HELAA would also inform the Council’s monitoring functions and the production of an Authorities Monitoring Report which would need to accompany the Borough Plan when it was submitted to the Secretary of State.

By way of a supplementary, Mr Serjeant commented that an independent Green Belt review for the whole borough was provided by Bell Cornwell as part of their Regulation 18 response. Had any changes been made to the content of the Plan as a consequence of that Green Belt review?

Councillor D. Wilson responded that there were a number of responses to the Regulation 18 process, some of which had been incorporated within the Regulation 19 process which would continue to 25 August for responses. Technically Regulation 19 was on the legal and technical soundness of the plan but in addition members of the public could make representations and they would be forwarded to the Secretary of State at the appropriate time. In relation to Regulation 18, the council had already responded, with the responses made available on the council website.