Havant Borough Council
Councillors:
36
Wards:
17
Committees:
35
Meetings (2025):
89
Meetings (2024):
96
Meeting
Planning Policy Committee (From 2021 to 2024) - Havant
Meeting Times
Scheduled Time
Start:
Tuesday, 30th May 2023
5:00 PM
Tuesday, 30th May 2023
5:00 PM
End:
Tuesday, 30th May 2023
9:00 PM
Tuesday, 30th May 2023
9:00 PM
Actual Time
Started:
Tuesday, 30th May 2023
5:00 PM
Tuesday, 30th May 2023
5:00 PM
Finished:
Tuesday, 30th May 2023
10:53 PM
Tuesday, 30th May 2023
10:53 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed
Confirmed
Date:
30 May 2023
30 May 2023
Location:
Hurstwood Room, Public Service Plaza, Civic Centre Road, Havant, Hampshire PO9 2AX
Hurstwood Room, Public Service Plaza, Civic Centre Road, Havant, Hampshire PO9 2AX
Meeting Attendees
Committee Member
Cabinet Lead for Housing
Committee Member
Chairman of Governance Committee
Cabinet Lead
Leader of the Conservative Party
Deputee
Cabinet Lead for Climate Emergency, Environment & Water Quality (Climate Change Champion)
Deputee
Leader of the Council - Cabinet Lead for Corporate Strategy. Performance, and External Relations, Chairman of Human Resources Committee
Committee Member
Councillor Carly Scannell
Expected
Cabinet Lead
Councillor Elizabeth Lloyd (formerly known as Dianne)
Independent for Stakes
Present, as expected
View Profile
Deputee
Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Lead for Finance, Leader of Liberal Democratic Party
Secretary
Democratic Services Officer
Ernest Lam
Expected
Secretary
Democratic Services Officer
Mark Gregory
Expected
Council Staff
Jane McEvoy
Not required
Public
Spare Copies
Expected
Agenda
1
Apologies for Absence
To receive and record any apologies for absence.
Minutes
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Kennett.
2
Minutes
To approve the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Policy Committee held on 27 October 2022 and 09 November 2022.
Attachments:
- Document Minutes , 27/10/2022 Planning Policy Committee 18 May 2023
- Document Minutes Public Pack, 09/11/2022 Planning Policy Committee 18 May 2023
Minutes
RESOLVED that the minutes of the Planning Policy Committee held on 27 October 2022 and 09 November 2022 be approved as true record and signed by the Chairman.
3
Declarations of Interests
To receive and record any declarations of interests from Members present.
Minutes
There were no declarations of interests relating to matters on the agenda.
4
First Annual Review of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Spending Protocol Review
Attachments:
- Document NP CIL Review Report Updated Final 18 May 2023
- Document Appendix A - CIL Spending Protocol 2022 18 May 2023
- Document Appendix B - NP Councillor Suggestion Form 18 May 2023
- Document Appendix C - Hayling Island Strategy and Langstone Funding Profiles 18 May 2023
- Document Appendix D - MoU Final May 2022 18 May 2023
Minutes
The Committee reviewed a report which sets out Havant Borough Council’s policy framework governing the spending of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and how this will be used to improve and expand the Borough’s infrastructure. The report looked in detail at the Neighbourhood Portion, and the system of allocation of funds since the CIL Spending Protocol was updated at Council on 16 March 2022. The report also commented on how the Emsworth Neighbourhood Forum were involved in the process for Emsworth Ward ‘additional 10%’, arising out of the Emsworth Neighbourhood Plan being ‘made’.
In response to questions from Members of the Committee, Councillor Robinson and officers clarified that:
All of the parks allocated Neighbourhood CIL Funding would be inclusive and accessible.
Many play parks in Havant were beyond their life for children, with a large deficit in play provision, which in turn required the biggest proportion of the CIL pot.
A further review on the spending of the Neighbourhood Portion (NP) would be carried out in 12 months.
Members scrutinised the report and raised the following points in the discussion:
1. A geographic spread on playground refurbishment is in progress, providing much-needed refurbishment.
2. Since play areas were important for children, 50% of the funding from the NP was much needed.
3. The CIL spending proportions could be reviewed if spending experience/Council priorities changed
4. The Waterlooville Recreational Ground was well-used and could be argued that it was money well-spent.
RESOLVED that Members would
1. endorse the CIL Spending Protocol as fit for purpose in its current form with the exception of: (a) Paragraph 4.10 which should be removed (b) Note all Capital Spends need to be incorporated the Capital Programme.
2. note that a further review be carried out in March 2024 to check if the spending of the Neighbourhood Portion (NP) has become embedded within the culture of the organisation.
In response to questions from Members of the Committee, Councillor Robinson and officers clarified that:
All of the parks allocated Neighbourhood CIL Funding would be inclusive and accessible.
Many play parks in Havant were beyond their life for children, with a large deficit in play provision, which in turn required the biggest proportion of the CIL pot.
A further review on the spending of the Neighbourhood Portion (NP) would be carried out in 12 months.
Members scrutinised the report and raised the following points in the discussion:
1. A geographic spread on playground refurbishment is in progress, providing much-needed refurbishment.
2. Since play areas were important for children, 50% of the funding from the NP was much needed.
3. The CIL spending proportions could be reviewed if spending experience/Council priorities changed
4. The Waterlooville Recreational Ground was well-used and could be argued that it was money well-spent.
RESOLVED that Members would
1. endorse the CIL Spending Protocol as fit for purpose in its current form with the exception of: (a) Paragraph 4.10 which should be removed (b) Note all Capital Spends need to be incorporated the Capital Programme.
2. note that a further review be carried out in March 2024 to check if the spending of the Neighbourhood Portion (NP) has become embedded within the culture of the organisation.
5
Building a Better Future Plan: Responses to the 2022 Consultation
Attachments:
- Document PPC report - Building a Better Future Plan consultation FINAL (CLEAN) (002) 18 May 2023
- Document PPC Report - Building a Better Future Plan consulation - appendix 1 18 May 2023
- Document PPC Report - Building a Better Future Plan consulation - appendix 2 18 May 2023
- Document Item 5 - Deputation from Cllr Grainne Rason 18 May 2023
Minutes
The Committee considered a report which summarised and analysed the feedback to the 2022 consultation of the Building a Better Future Plan.
The Committee received supplementary information, circulated prior to the meeting in the form of a written deputation submitted by Councillor Rason.
The Committee was addressed by Councillor Rason, who reiterated the issues set out in her written deputation.
The officers responded to the issues raised by Councillor Rason as follows:
1. The report was not seeking a decision neither on policies within the local plan, nor on allocations which it may maintain. The report would only note the responses which had been received through the main consultation and to the call for sites.
2. A number of matters that Councillor Rason raised have been reflected in the report.
3. Appendix 2 of the report would have no planning status.
4. The local plan (including the allocations which it would contain) would be subject to future meetings of the Planning Policy Committee.
5. The local plan would naturally seek to address some of the matters raised in Councillor Rason’s deputation.
6. Inappropriate development could be pushed back by having a local plan in place. The Council has more ability to shape the type and nature of development coming forward with an up-to-date local plan in place and more ability to refuse development which does not accord with the plan.
In response to questions from Members of the Committee, Councillor Lloyd and the officers stated that:
1. There was a new statement of community involvement published last September prior to the start of the consultation.
2. Residents on the housing register will not be specifically notified on the consultation of housing unless they have signed up for the local plan mailing list.
3. Government’s approach to national policy would be that if the supply of housing is significantly boosted within the country, housing will then become more affordable.
4. The survey included residents who live in the Borough, and also people who work and study within the Borough.
5. The 25-54 year old age group was the most difficult group to get engagement from regarding the local plan.
Members scrutinised the report and raised the following comment in the discussion:
1. The survey was not easy to conduct, and it was directed in various methods.
RESOLVED that Members are requested to note:
1. The comments received through the consultation on the Building a Better Future Plan held between October and November 2022, set out in Appendix 1 of the report; and
2. The sites submitted as part of the Call for Sites, set out in Appendix 2 of the report.
The Committee received supplementary information, circulated prior to the meeting in the form of a written deputation submitted by Councillor Rason.
The Committee was addressed by Councillor Rason, who reiterated the issues set out in her written deputation.
The officers responded to the issues raised by Councillor Rason as follows:
1. The report was not seeking a decision neither on policies within the local plan, nor on allocations which it may maintain. The report would only note the responses which had been received through the main consultation and to the call for sites.
2. A number of matters that Councillor Rason raised have been reflected in the report.
3. Appendix 2 of the report would have no planning status.
4. The local plan (including the allocations which it would contain) would be subject to future meetings of the Planning Policy Committee.
5. The local plan would naturally seek to address some of the matters raised in Councillor Rason’s deputation.
6. Inappropriate development could be pushed back by having a local plan in place. The Council has more ability to shape the type and nature of development coming forward with an up-to-date local plan in place and more ability to refuse development which does not accord with the plan.
In response to questions from Members of the Committee, Councillor Lloyd and the officers stated that:
1. There was a new statement of community involvement published last September prior to the start of the consultation.
2. Residents on the housing register will not be specifically notified on the consultation of housing unless they have signed up for the local plan mailing list.
3. Government’s approach to national policy would be that if the supply of housing is significantly boosted within the country, housing will then become more affordable.
4. The survey included residents who live in the Borough, and also people who work and study within the Borough.
5. The 25-54 year old age group was the most difficult group to get engagement from regarding the local plan.
Members scrutinised the report and raised the following comment in the discussion:
1. The survey was not easy to conduct, and it was directed in various methods.
RESOLVED that Members are requested to note:
1. The comments received through the consultation on the Building a Better Future Plan held between October and November 2022, set out in Appendix 1 of the report; and
2. The sites submitted as part of the Call for Sites, set out in Appendix 2 of the report.
6
Legal Agreement for Warnford Park Estate Nutrient Mitigation Scheme
Attachments:
- Document Warnford Park Estate Legal Agreement - Revised Cover Report 18 May 2023
- Document Appendix A - Location Plan 18 May 2023
- Document Appendix B Mitigation Schemes in the Solent 18 May 2023
- Document Appendix C Letter to Havant BC from NE 18 May 2023
- Document Item 6 - Response from Cllr Richard Kennett 18 May 2023
Minutes
The Committee considered a report that would recommend the Council to enter into a legal agreement for the Warnford Park Estate nutrient mitigation scheme to ensure an efficient approach to nutrient mitigation. This would enable developers for large scale developments in Havant Borough to access nutrient mitigation from a third party mitigation scheme, reflecting that the Council’s strategic mitigation scheme at Warblington Farm would be reserved for use by smaller scale developments. The report also sought to delegate authority to enter into further legal agreements with appropriate third party mitigation schemes as they emerge onto the market.
The Committee received supplementary information, circulated prior to the meeting, which included a written deputation submitted by Councillor Kennett.
The Officers commented on the issues raised in the written deputation as follows:
1. The need for development in Havant to be nutrient neutral has been established through case law.
2. The Warnford Park Estate nutrient mitigation scheme was fully compliant with Natural England’s methodology.
3. There was an established team within the partnership for South Hampshire that head up the mitigation approach.
4. The purpose of the agreement would be to ensure effective enforcement and monitoring of nitrate mitigation for developments in the Borough which use Warnford for their mitigation.
5. The agreement put in place would be considered as the most efficient and sensible way of enforcing and monitoring the mitigation at Warnford and future agreements would do the same for other nitrate mitigation schemes coming forward outside the Borough.
6. For bespoke schemes, a suitably qualified expert would be commissioned if necessary to ensure the suitability of the mitigation.
7. The recommendations would not take away the ability to comment on the use of any mitigation site in relation to any particular planning application as each individual planning application for development in the Borough would be subject to its own habitats regulation assessment.
8. Requiring committee approval before entering into every legal agreement with a third party mitigation provider would take up a lot of time and resources.
Members scrutinised the report and raised the following issues in the discussion:
1. If the Committee delegate authority to officers to enter into legal agreements with mitigation providers this would deprive members of the public from being able to comment on the proposals.
2. Since the scheme is new to the local public, communication with the public would be essential.
RESOLVED that consideration of this report be deferred to enable all Councillors, and in particular Members of this Committee to be briefed on nutrient neutrality in its entirety.
The Committee received supplementary information, circulated prior to the meeting, which included a written deputation submitted by Councillor Kennett.
The Officers commented on the issues raised in the written deputation as follows:
1. The need for development in Havant to be nutrient neutral has been established through case law.
2. The Warnford Park Estate nutrient mitigation scheme was fully compliant with Natural England’s methodology.
3. There was an established team within the partnership for South Hampshire that head up the mitigation approach.
4. The purpose of the agreement would be to ensure effective enforcement and monitoring of nitrate mitigation for developments in the Borough which use Warnford for their mitigation.
5. The agreement put in place would be considered as the most efficient and sensible way of enforcing and monitoring the mitigation at Warnford and future agreements would do the same for other nitrate mitigation schemes coming forward outside the Borough.
6. For bespoke schemes, a suitably qualified expert would be commissioned if necessary to ensure the suitability of the mitigation.
7. The recommendations would not take away the ability to comment on the use of any mitigation site in relation to any particular planning application as each individual planning application for development in the Borough would be subject to its own habitats regulation assessment.
8. Requiring committee approval before entering into every legal agreement with a third party mitigation provider would take up a lot of time and resources.
Members scrutinised the report and raised the following issues in the discussion:
1. If the Committee delegate authority to officers to enter into legal agreements with mitigation providers this would deprive members of the public from being able to comment on the proposals.
2. Since the scheme is new to the local public, communication with the public would be essential.
RESOLVED that consideration of this report be deferred to enable all Councillors, and in particular Members of this Committee to be briefed on nutrient neutrality in its entirety.
Previous Meetings
Future Meetings
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in