Not for publication by virtue of Paragraph 3 of Part I of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.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 he wanted to get a debate going about key worker housing and a first time buyers mechanism. 

Ø  That the housing policy document still had not been written and that consideration might want to be given to reducing the 30% to a more achievable level.

Ø  That if the Plan was found unsound but the Council had demonstrated that it acted ‘properly’ in most areas the Inspector might ask for specific areas to be re-written with the alternative of having to go back to the drawing board if major areas were found to be unsound. 

Ø  That once the evidence base had been gathered by the end of January (including traffic modelling, identifying small sites, plus looking at water and sewage facilities) a stronger case could be made with regard to specific numbers and the impact on traffic / flooding, etc.

Ø  That the duty to co-operate needed to be mapped out carefully so that it did not look rushed or alternatively the impact if extra time was given (e.g. if left until August it would be a nine month gap rather than the planned three month gap).

Ø  The Team Manager - Strategy and Plans explained that it was not just about the numbers it was also about the delivery and whether sites were available, suitable and deliverable. 

Ø  The Director of Development and Regeneration explained that his team needed to go through a list of approximately 1000 sites and do viability assessments, although some may already have been done.  It was noted that work was currently being done with the Stafferton Way Redevelopment and Reform Road in the aim to show deliverability but that further work for both sites needed to be done.

Ø  That the Plan ignored permitted development rights (changing offices into accommodation) as it was not something that could be planned for and would have to be accepted by the Council if it started to happen in the Royal Borough. 

Ø  That if the LEP figure was found to have been based on a strong evidence base and the Council had not accepted it then the Plan could be found unsound.

Ø  Councillor Beer state that the LEP was behind the Heathrow expansion which would result in more houses from 2020.  It was felt that the transport and infrastructure needed to addressed.  The Chairman stated that Heathrow had lots of other Local Authorities located in close proximity which were very accessible, not just the Royal Borough.

Ø  Councillor Beer suggested that a discount be offered on brownfield refurbishments to help steer developers away from the Green Belt.

Ø  It was suggested that the Royal Borough should look to hold discussions on OAN numbers, if needed, with Local Authorities further afield such as Surrey, Wokingham and West Berkshire.  

Ø  That LSH stood for Lambert Smith Hampton. 

Ø  That the Town Centre should not fall under the Area Action Plan.

Ø  That it was felt the feasibility study should come before the Local Plans Working Group rather than PRoM. 

Ø  Councillor Walters stated that the officers would have all the help they needed in order to keep to the timetable.  It was suggested that Richard Bate and similar consultants should be used where needed.  The Director of Development and Regeneration explained that he hoped Richard Bate would attend the Local Plans Working Group as a critical friend however could not attend tonight’s meeting as he unavailable for three weeks.

Ø  It was suggested by Councillor Hilton that Microsoft Project be used in future to produce the timetables / process maps.  The Director of Development and Regeneration welcomed Members views on how much detail on the timetables / process maps were needed.  Councillor Hilton stated that he was interested in the exceptions and what was being done to resolve them. 

Ø  Councillor Beer requested that multi-stories / tower blocks were avoided as he felt them to be a ‘disaster’ as they were difficult to manage and needed 24/7 security. 

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Local Plans Working Group agreed with the format of the process map (for the time being) and that the mitigation be completed in all risk areas on the spreadsheet.