Basingstoke & Dean Borough Council Economic, Planning and Housing Committee Meeting

Apologies were received from Councillor Rhatigan.

There were no declarations of interest.

The Chair stated he had agreed to consider an item of urgency requested by Councillor James.  The matter referred to the council’s response to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) consultation on reforms to national planning policy which closed on 2 March 2022.

Officers informed the committee of the actions they would be taking to respond to the consultation.  A written briefing was being prepared for circulation to all members outlining the implications of the proposals to the borough which could be used to inform individual or parish responses to the consultation.  All members would also receive a copy of the draft officer response in consultation with the Cabinet member for Planning and Infrastructure to the consultation and officers would be happy to attend group meetings to provide technical information should members want to provide a group response.  A webpage would also be created on the council’s website where the council’s and groups consultation responses could be published together with the member briefing information.  Letters prepared on behalf of the Portfolio Holder, Leader or group leaders to relevant government ministers could also be published on the webpage.

It was confirmed that due to the timescale to respond to the consultation there would not be sufficient time for the committee to convene a task and finish group.

The committee discussed the matter and welcomed the actions being taken.  It was requested that a special meeting of the committee be convened to discuss a shared response that was open and transparent.

Councillor James proposed the following motion, seconded by Councillor Tomblin:

We request a full and detailed report is prepared providing an analysis of the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities recently published consultation on future planning policy and legislation.  That this is shared with all members.  We want to understand the implications for Basingstoke and Deane so that the best decisions can be made in the interests of our residents.

We want to see a consultation response prepared with member views taken onboard, and we recommend that a special EPH meeting is scheduled to assist the Cabinet Member in drafting a consultation response to DLUHC on behalf of Basingstoke and Deane.

Upon a vote the motion was unanimously agreed.

Resolved:  That the motion be carried .

The minutes of the meeting held on 3 November 2022 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The committee considered a report which provided an update on the delivery of infrastructure in the borough associated with the Adopted Local Plan as well as secured funding through Section 106 (s106) agreements and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).

The committee discussed the report and asked questions to officers which established:

·         A process map would be circulated to inform members of the process and decision making of the allocation of s106 funding.

·         A written response be provided regarding the Infrastructure List and how members could influence the content of the Infrastructure List.

·         The schemes identified on the Infrastructure List were those that were identified on the former Regulation 123 List and deemed appropriate at the time the council chose to implement CIL in 2018.

The committee made the following comments:

·         There should be a clear process for decision making regarding the allocation of s106/CIL funding and how ward councillors are engaged in the process.

·         Members need to understand how the Infrastructure Delivery Plan integrates with the Infrastructure Funding Statement and the decision making process.

·         The Infrastructure List contains a number of schemes that are out of date.  There should be a mechanism for an annual review to ensure the Infrastructure List is up to date and relevant.

Resolved:     That the Portfolio Holder consider the comments expressed by the committee.

The committee considered the council’s annual Authority Monitoring Report (AMR) which provided monitoring information and statistical data for planning related matters.

Councillor Harvey, a visiting speaker, addressed the committee. He referred to the number of houses built in the borough over the last 3 years which was in excess of the number required by the Local Plan and suggested there was a 5 year land supply if those additional houses counted.  He raised concern regarding the significant number of houses being delivered on windfall sites rather than planned strategic sites.  He considered that the borough was open to speculative development  because strategic sites such as Manydown had not come forward.  Whilst there was permission to be build 3,250 homes on Manydown, he considered it a failure that only 1,210 were predicted to be built by 2029.  He added that of the 1,641 permissions given for affordable homes in the last monitoring year, 1408 homes were part of the Manydown planning permission.  He was also concerned that the delivery of affordable homes had decreased and of the 283 affordable homes delivered, 59 percent were flats.  He stated that communities would not be facing speculative development if Manydown had been delivered.  He felt that the council needed to take back control of planning in the borough to deliver the affordable homes needed and meet the expectations across communities.  He reiterated the importance of public scrutiny of the Annual Monitoring Report.

The Portfolio Holder for Planning and Infrastructure provided a brief overview of the report.

The committee questioned officers and discussed the report which established the following:

·         Some statements in the preamble of the report regarding the positive impacts of the AMR to support and contribute towards a number of council priorities were questionable as further detailed data indicated otherwise.  The lack of improving river and landscape quality was given as an example.

·         It was disappointing that the target for affordable housing had not been met.  It was questioned how the local authority can ensure that sufficient affordable housing is built particularly if developers cite viability as an issue and how the target could be more ambitious in the future.  It was clarified that the affordability target would be reviewed as part of the Local Plan Update (LPU) based on evidence such as viability and need.

·         Following discussion and concerns raised regarding housing delivery from windfall sites it was suggested that the committee should have an informed debate to explore the positive and negative aspects of windfall sites.

·         An update was requested on the progress of regeneration schemes in Buckskin, South Ham and Norden.

·         Frustration that restrictions imposed by West Berkshire Council had resulted in no ability to build new homes near nuclear installations.

·         Concern was raised regarding the high number of permitted development flats delivered in certain years and an expectation it will continue to increase in the future with no supporting s106 or CIL funding.

·         It was suggested that the committee discuss the optimal mix of affordable housing allocation so the mix is more in line with market demand.

·         In relation to provision for gypsy and traveller pitches, it was commented that developers tend to deliver a pitch at the end of the development of the site, when the majority of houses have been allocated to buyers, therefore permissions for pitches was not a useful indicator.

·         It was explained that officers carry out assessments on the design quality of large housing developments using the ‘building a healthy life’ criteria, guidance issued by Homes England.  Concerns were raised regarding the assessment for the development at Weston Road.  Officers were requested to circulate the Homes England assessment criteria and assessment for the development at Weston Road.

·         Grey RAG ratings were used when there was no specific target.  It was suggested that the RAG status for development in strategic gaps and SSSIs and SINCS  should be red.  Concern was raised with the number of planning applications approved as the policies were designed to protect the environment.

·         It was suggested that the strategic gap and SSSI/SINC policies be reviewed for improvements ahead of the LPU, particularly in relation to circumstances for granting planning applications and whether that would set a precedent.

·         There was a need to look at what the council can do and what we want government to do in terms of improving water quality, as water companies are failing to do so.

·         Water monitoring data was published every three years by the Environment Agency (EA) however officers were having conversations with the EA regarding the potential to receive annual statements.

·         With regard to nutrient neutrality and protecting proposed European designated sites and how it relates to the nature recovery strategy, the committee were informed that HCC were the responsible body and work was progressing however more detailed information was awaited from DEFRA.

·         It was surprising that no new air quality management areas had been declared and it was queried whether it was due to lack of measuring and who had responsibility for measuring.  It was clarified that detail of monitoring was included in the councils annual Air Quality Status Report.

·         The Portfolio Holder for Planning and Infrastructure confirmed he would write to the relevant bodies to reiterate the need to receive regular monitoring details on water and air quality.

·         There needed to be a clear directive on which policy takes precedence in relation to energy conservation and protection of the historic environment.  Allowing double glazing to conserve energy in a conservation area was given as an example of which policy takes precedence.  Clarity from government was requested regarding how listed buildings could improve their energy rating.

·         Whilst an increase in jobs was positive there was a need to consider the quality and understand the nature of the new jobs created. Moving from higher paid jobs to warehouse jobs was given as an example.  Officers would provide further information to the committee.

·         There was a need to review some of the targets with a view to tightening them up and making them more measurable (e.g retail). 

·         It was suggested that a different colour be used in the RAG rating to identify those policy indicators without a specific target but where there were areas of concern.

·         Concern regarding the loss of significant retail space and the impact on the borough such as loss of visitors.

·         It was recognised that the LP policy updates were pivotal to evaluate policy statements using data and their importance to the future of the borough.

·         It was suggested there should be a section regarding health provision with indicators included such as GP services, dentists etc.  Comparing the number of GPs per head of the population compared to national and regional averages would be useful data.

·         Concern was raised that the report references the 2011 census data when more up to date information is available and would provide a more accurate picture of health in the borough.

·         With regard to infrastructure, it would be useful if the report provided more detail regarding issues, bottlenecks, reporting and progress e.g water sewerage.

·         Concern regarding housing affordability prices with private rents at the lower quartile being more expensive than the regional average.  Insufficient delivery of affordable housing is forcing residents into private rentals.

·         An update on the position with the Manydown housing led allocation was requested.

Resolved: That the comments of the Scrutiny Committee be considered by the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Infrastructure.

The committee reviewed and noted it’s work programme. 

It was confirmed that the Leisure Park Public Realm Delivery and Infrastructure Delivery Plan would be scheduled for the new municipal year.

Resolved: To note the work programme.