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

Councillor Carruthers was replaced by Councillor Falconer.

Councillor Konieczko was replaced by Councillor Slimin.

Councillor L James was replaced by Councillor Harvey.

There were no declarations of interest.

There were no urgent matters.

The Chair advised that the minutes of the meeting held on 5 January 2023 would be approved at the next meeting due to be held on 2 March 2023.

Councillor Cubitt made a formal complaint and stated that she felt that there was enough time between the last meeting for the minutes to be available for approval.

The Chair invited visiting speaker Gareth Capner to address the Committee, his comments included:

• Expressed that the key concern was the proposed continued use of the Standard Housing Assessment Method (SHAM). The council’s response should dismiss the SHAM.

• Stated that a more accurate Chelmer model-based housing projection could be made in the spring which would provide a more objective position.

• The national projections undertaken in 2014 had overestimated the actual number of households in England in 2021 by nearly 1 million.

• It was a large risk for the Council if the Borough had to rely on exceptional circumstances as a basis for the Local Plan.

The Leader introduced the report which advised members that the Government was consulting on a number of proposed changes to national planning policy. The changes included updates to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which were due to be implemented in Spring 2023.  The Committee were requested to provide its views so that a response to the consultation could be produced by the Council.

The Committee discussed the report and made the following comments to Officers for inclusion in the consultation response:

Housing Need and requirements

• Requested that Officers use the visiting speaker Gareth Capner’s letter as a starting point for the response.

• The Committee reject the current SHAM method and requested that an objectively assessed local need-based method be used instead such as the Chelmer model.

• Stated that Councils should be allowed to use a flexible evidence base.

• Questioned the purpose of using extremely old data when newer more accurate data was available.

• Felt that it was dangerous to compare Basingstoke to Milton Keynes and Ashford as Basingstoke and Deane was a distinct Borough but acknowledged that if the comment was made to the Government to stress the fact that the Borough had not grown organically it would be a positive inclusion.

• Stated that the Borough had high growth which was double the national average.

• Commented that the Borough had been building houses for other parts of the country for a number of years.

• The Council should reject any narrowing of the exceptional circumstances that could be considered when formulating a suitable housing number.

• Felt that the national 300,000 housing target should be removed.

• Would like the development constraints at Tadley to be reconsidered (AWE) but acknowledged that Tadley didn’t have many areas of land available to build on.

• Basingstoke and Deane was a borough of two halves with both urban and rural elements and this should be recognised in any housing number.

The Housing Delivery test and Five-Year Housing Land Supply Test

• The Committee agreed that the Boroughs historic over supply from 1996 should be taken into consideration and would be a suitable starting point when considering delivery rates and the housing number.

• Stated that the 5-year land supply should work in the Councils favour and shouldn’t result in applications being forced through at the Development Control Committee. The Delivery rates within the Borough had been high and the Council should not be penalised.

• It was important to ensure that the right types of homes could be delivered as there were 3,000 people on the housing list for a 1-bedroom house.

Measures to Tackle Slow Build-out of Permissions

• The failure to deliver Manydown had resulted in a number of issues.

• Any landowners with outline planning permission who failed to deliver houses in line with agreed build out rates should have to pay the Council tax as if the homes had been built as agreed.

• Questioned whether the Government could stipulate a two year build out period instead of three.

• The Government should increase the promotion of modular housing.

• Suggested that CIL payments should be paid upfront instead of on completion.

• Developers often tried to buy out the affordable housing elements of a developments.

• Stated that housebuilders would go out of business if the penalties for delayed housing delivery were too severe but acknowledged that solutions were needed.

• Requested that large strategic sites should be treated differently.

• Stated that Government intervention was needed in the housing market.

• In the housing delivery test, permissions should not be restricted to three years as this would penalise areas with strategic sites which take a number of years to come forward.

Onshore Wind Development and Energy Efficiency

• Stated that the current proposal would require Hampshire County Council to change their policy.

• Welcomed the changes but stated that they did not go far enough and  was a wasted opportunity. There was no mention of solar panels on roofs or heat source pumps and other forms of energy should be considered.

• Highlighted the village of Swaffham Prior where they ran a successful community energy scheme.

• Stated that if there was more clarity from the Government that the land for solar farms would return to agricultural land after the life of the solar farm then it would result in more support from communities.

• Stated that any mention of water efficiency had been omitted from the consultation. The NPPF should require developers to consider this and less water usage per household should be encouraged. Concern raised about water rationing.

• There had been applications to the Development Control Committee where only 20% of the building had solar panels. It was felt that 100% of any industrial buildings should be covered.

• A number of applications for solar farms had been made on high grade agricultural land which could be used for other important purposes.

• Stated that Solar Farms should link into local residents to lower their energy bills and power usage.

• Renewable energy options should be disconnected from gas and oil.

•  More planning powers were required to make combined heat and power schemes happen. 

Environmental Protection and Tackling Climate Change

• There should be measures in place to prevent developers from removing items from sites in order to remove the requirement for 10% biodiversity gain. Developers should be incentivised on climate change.

• Some Members felt that the fact that developers could provide the 10% over the lifetime of the development was not acceptable.

• It was raised that the Council were unable to compel developers to build eco-friendly housing and that there should be a policy that if a council had declared a Climate or Ecological emergency, it could produce its own relevant policies.

• There needed to be effective incentives from the Government to encourage companies to set up plastic recycling plants.

Plan Making

• The proposed introduction of supplementary plans could result in a constant plan review process and introduce a new mechanism for bringing new sites forward.

·          Clarity was sought on the arrangement for the non-delivery of sites and 

         district wide design codes and its relationship to Supplementary Planning    Documents.

• Concern was raised in relation to district wide design codes and also their relationship with SPDs

National Development Management Policies

• The introduction of these could impact negatively on localism. Whilst there is a role for national policies, where decisions could be taken locally they should be.

Neighbourhood plans

• Clarity was required in relation to the review process for neighbourhood plans and their relative weight.

• Clarity was sought over neighbourhood plans potentially being overwritten by local plans.

• Stressed the need for protection for all neighbourhood plans regardless of whether they include housing allocations.

• Reference was made to the need to review speculative housing delivery during the making of a plan and its connection to an area’s housing number.

• Members stressed the hard work and financial cost when creating a neighbourhood plan.

General comments

• Members raised numerous issues and examples in relation to permitted development and it was stated that standards were needed to regulate schemes.

• Stronger legislation was needed for fireproofing.

• Tadley was raised as a particular issue in relation to policies for HMO’s.

• The support for social rent housing was good but funding was required.

• Clarity was required in relation to the definition of “beauty” and how it could be delivered.

• The Committee supported the comments made by Whitchurch Town Council.

• The need for appropriate housing for the elderly was raised.

• Reference was made to the MPs who had pushed the issue which had resulted in the consultation.

Resolved: The Committee

• Provides its views to the Cabinet Member for Planning and Infrastructure.

• Requests that the draft responses be circulated to all members prior to the formal submission to Government.

The committee reviewed and noted it’s work programme.

Councillor Cubitt requested that a full response on the land supply and water queries raised at the previous meeting be produced by the Cabinet Member and expressed disappointment that reports on the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and the Leisure Park Public Realm Delivery had not been brought to a meeting during the current municipal year.