Agenda item

To consider the Member Motion - Planning White Paper as proposed by Councillor Loughlin.

Councillor Gregory left the meeting at 10.25pm.

 

Councillor Loughlin spoke to her motion regarding the Planning White Paper. In summary, she said she was concerned that the proposals in the Planning White Paper would lead to central Government, or developers, imposing housing on communities without input from local government. She said the Planning White Paper would be a disaster for democracy and for local planning, and particularly detrimental to local communities.

 

Councillor Caton seconded the motion

 

Councillor Evans had provided notice of an amendment. He said there was very little difference between his amendment and the original motion, but he had proposed an amendment in an attempt to extract a commitment across the Council to show there was common interest in approving a “tighter” motion with cross-party support. He urged Members to vote for the amendment.

 

Councillor Driscoll seconded the amendment.

 

Councillor Caton asked why the amendment was tabled if there was little difference between the amendment and the original motion. He said he felt the amendment was not an improvement and demonstrated that there was not a cross party consensus in Council. He asked why the two points had been removed from the original motion, relating to the housing of the vulnerable and those on lower incomes. He said he would be proposing his further amendment.

 

Councillor Light said she could not see the point of the amendment as Councillor Loughlin’s original motion accurately encapsulated the issues at hand. She would be voting against the amendment.

 

Councillor Fairhurst said that the amendment did not materially change the original motion. He said it was an odd situation as he could vote for both the amendment and the motion.

 

Councillor Criscione said he was sympathetic to the motion but he could not support it. Whilst he and his Group shared concerns regarding the White Paper, his approach would be to work with Parliament and Local Government colleagues to improve the proposals. He said the motion had triggered a conversation with Kemi Badenoch MP, who was working on the issue.

 

Councillor Merifield said she was disappointed that the original motion had been tabled as the Council was always going to respond to the Government consultation. She said Councillors had a duty to represent the people of the district and she could not see the sense in bringing this to Full Council for debate.

 

Councillor Driscoll said such an important issue should not become a political matter and he had seconded the amendment to include reference to cross party support.

 

Councillor Loughlin said the amendment had weakened her motion; she was particularly disappointed with the removal of the reference to the housing numbers algorithm. She said she could not support this amendment.

 

In response to a point of clarification from Councillor Merifield, Councillor Evans confirmed that the consultation response relating to the housing algorithm had already been sent. In reply to previous points made, he said many issues would be covered and consulted upon before a further response was submitted in the lead up to the end of October.

 

Councillor Caton said the original motion related to lobbying the MP in respect of the impact of the algorithm on housing numbers in Uttlesford, not simply responding to the consultation regarding the White Paper.

 

The Leader said the Administration and the Liberal Democrat Group were on the same page in regard to this matter and it would have been conducive if the Administration had been approached to discuss the issue. He said the motion was indicative of Westminster parties and had been tabled for political reasons. He asked why the reference to cross party agreement had been struck out of the further amendment, as tabled by Councillor Caton.

 

Councillor Loughlin said she had not tabled the motion because she was a Liberal Democrat, but rather because she felt it was the right thing to do. She would not be voting for the amendment as she felt it did not strengthen the intent of the original motion.

 

The Chair called for a vote on the amendment as follows:

 

This Council being of the opinion that there is cross party consensus to seek to improve the planning system, does not consider that the proposed reforms in the White Paper “Planning For The Future” published in August 2020 achieve that aim.

This Council notes the responses given on its behalf on 1 October 2020 by the Leader to a Consultation upon “Changes to the current planning system”, which it endorses.

This Council resolves to submit a response to the White Paper consultation which will (among other matters):

1. advocate the continuation of the third tiers’ and residents’ entitlement to be consulted upon planning policy and to submit effective representations upon planning development applications;

2. support the provision of at least the same amount of affordable housing on site as at present;

3. promote the effective supply and early use of any infrastructure levy, which should be locally and not nationally set;

4. support proper consideration of the effective stewardship and enhancement of the natural and historic environment, noting with regret that no consultation is currently sought on this topic;

5. object to the use of “pattern book” model for all new development;

6. support the value and materiality of Neighbourhood Plans; and

7. support the greater and improved use of digital technology in the development planning management process.

 

This Council further resolves:

8. to submit a copy of its responses and representations to the Minister of Housing, Communities and Local Government in further support of the briefing meeting held by Officers with his Officials in September 2020, and in addition to write to and lobby Mrs Kemi Badenoch MP urging her to oppose the proposals in so far as they seek to limit democratic participation in local planning matters and to request her support for the above resolutions; and

9. to highlight its concerns with the third tiers directly and with residents via press and social media.

 

The amendment was carried 22 for, 8 against and 1 abstention, and became the substantive motion.

 

Councillor Caton spoke to the further amendment to the amendment. He said the current motion failed to mention local democratic control over the planning process. Furthermore, it said nothing on the granting of automatic planning permission under the new process; both points should be included in the motion. He said he was in favour of cross-party working, as demonstrated by him seconding the DRS motion, but respect was required from all Groups in the Chamber.

 

Councillor Evans said he was willing to alter the motion so that the two points mentioned could be included, as long as there was reference that this was a cross party venture. This would give the motion further weight when lobbying Government.

 

Councillor Caton said he was willing to re-instate reference to this being a cross-party agreement, if points 1 and 2 from the original motion were included.

 

Councillor Pavitt said he was completely bemused as to why this debate had arisen; agreement should have been reached long before this point in time.

 

Councillor Evans agreed to alter the substantive motion, as seconded by Councillor Driscoll.

 

 

 

RESOLVED that:

 

This Council being of the opinion that there is cross party consensus to seek to improve the planning system, does not consider that the proposed reforms in the White Paper “Planning For The Future” published in August 2020 achieve that aim.

 

This Council notes the responses given on its behalf on 1 October 2020 by the Leader to a Consultation upon “Changes to the current planning system”, which it endorses.

 

This Council resolves to submit a response to the White Paper consultation which will (among other matters):

1. support the local determination of the planning framework and planning applications which will enable local communities to continue to shape their future;

2. oppose the granting of automatic rights for developers to build on land identified “for growth” in Local Plans made under the proposed new plan making process

3. advocate the continuation of the third tiers’ and residents’ entitlement to be consulted upon planning policy and to submit effective representations upon planning development applications;

4. support the provision of at least the same amount of affordable housing on site as at present;

5. promote the effective supply and early use of any infrastructure levy, which should be locally and not nationally set;

6. support proper consideration of the effective stewardship and enhancement of the natural and historic environment, noting with regret that no consultation is currently sought on this topic;

7. object to the use of “pattern book” model for all new development;

8. support the value and materiality of Neighbourhood Plans; and

9. support the greater and improved use of digital technology in the development planning management process.

 

This Council further resolves:

10. to submit a copy of its responses and representations to the Minister of Housing, Communities and Local Government in further support of the briefing meeting held by Officers with his Officials in September 2020, and in addition to write to and lobby Mrs Kemi Badenoch MP urging her to oppose the proposals in so far as they seek to limit democratic participation in local planning matters and to request her support for the above resolutions; and

11. to highlight its concerns with the third tiers directly and with residents via press and social media.

 

The substantive motion was carried 26 for, 3 against and 2 abstentions.

 

The meeting ended at 11.15pm.