Agenda item

The following Motion was proposed by Councillor Anderson and seconded by Councillor Williams:

Planning Bill

Whilst welcoming and participating in some of the Government’s proposed changes to the Planning system, for example the use of design codes and mapping, this Council is opposed to the reduction in community involvement, and requests that the Leader and Portfolio Holder for Planning write to the Secretary of State at Ministry of Housing, Community and Local Government to express the Council’s objection to the reduction.

The Council has concerns about the removal of local policies from the Development Plans part of the system, and the other consequences of allowing certain planning proposals to bypass local decision making in the Development Management part of the system altogether through further permitted development and prior approval, and asks that these matters are included too in objecting to the Secretary of State.

An amendment to the Motion was proposed by Councillor Tindall and seconded by Councillor England. The amendment was to include the following paragraph to the preliminary Motion:

Further, following the passage of the Bill, with consequential amendments and additions to the draft Local Plan

a.    The Council recognises that community involvement would benefit from a re-run of the Regulation 18 consultation, and

b.     The Council believes that the draft Local Plan would be strengthened for local people by added provisions for social housing, distinct from affordable housing.

A vote was held on the amended Motion:

15 for,

20 against,

0 abstentions,

Therefore the motion was denied.

A vote was then held on the original Motion:

22 for,

0 against,

12 abstentions,

Therefore the motion was carried.

The following Motion was proposed by Councillor Anderson and seconded by Councillor Williams:

Planning Bill

Whilst welcoming and participating in some of the Government’s proposed changes to the Planning system, for example the use of design codes and mapping, this Council is opposed to the reduction in community involvement, and requests that the Leader and Portfolio Holder for Planning write to the Secretary of State at Ministry of Housing, Community and Local Government to express the Council’s objection to the reduction.

The Council has concerns about the removal of local policies from the Development Plans part of the system, and the other consequences of allowing certain planning proposals to bypass local decision making in the Development Management part of the system altogether through further permitted development and prior approval, and asks that these matters are included too in objecting to the Secretary of State.

An amendment to the Motion was proposed by Councillor Tindall and seconded by Councillor England. The amendment was to include the following paragraph to the preliminary Motion:

Further, following the passage of the Bill, with consequential amendments and additions to the draft Local Plan

1. The Council recognises that community involvement would benefit from a re-run of the Regulation 18 consultation, and
2. The Council believes that the draft Local Plan would be strengthened for local people by added provisions for social housing, distinct from affordable housing.

Councillor Anderson said he wouldn’t accept the amendment and asked that his colleagues reject it. He explained we already had debate and Q&A’s on this very point this evening and now wasn’t the time to be prejudging whether we will be doing it or not.

Councillor Williams agreed with Councillor Anderson and said he couldn’t support the amendment. He advised he was sympathetic to the amendment but these two matters weren’t in the same Bill and if we passed the amended motion we would leave ourselves open to challenge.

Councillor Pringle spoke in support of the amendment. She said many of the residents she had interacted with were frustrated by the lack of social housing and some are living in completely unacceptable living conditions, yet the government continue to conflate the need for social housing with a free for all to allow developer’s access to our Green Belt.

Councillor England said: “This original Motion identifies that Community Involvement is important – The Local Plan is certainly the issue which brings the most public participation, but we need to make a commitment to build proper trust with residents:

We’ve convinced ourselves that 3% of the population commenting is great – it isn’t! The bar for considering a Local Plan consultation a strong success is set very low, by those about to jump it!

And it is my conviction that with a different approach to the R18 consultation many-fold more responses and ideas could be garnered. Those of us who dove into the engagement of this know that many more people have opinions, but are not willing to enter into the detail, or cannot formulate their response, so don’t.

This is why I believe it is important for this Council to be clear now with residents that it recognises community involvement enough to seek a re-run of R18 – preferably one where respondents can request a copy of their first submission to use as a starting-point for their update, and perhaps be given more than one scenario to rank their preferences? (Obviously this can only be advisory, but there is value in that!

If there is agreement that Involvement is important enough to be protected, then we should take this moment to cherish it and really find out how people’s preferences might work.

Yes - The greenbelt must be protected, and I know that members across parties are keen to address the need for social housing – again, if so, we should expressly plan for it, so that it happens as we want it to happen.” 

A vote was held on the amended Motion:

15 for,

20 against,

0 abstentions,

Therefore the amendment was denied.

The Mayor invited Councillor Anderson to speak on the original Motion.

Councillor Anderson stated that the motion is to do with the Planning Bill and not the Local Plan. He did not agree with the views of Councillor England and considers that the consultation carried out was extensive and it is not necessary to carryout re-run consultation on the draft plan when we haven’t actually had the time to change anything.

Councillor Hollinghurst spoke against the motion as being unsatisfactory un-amended. He stated that the big issue was local involvement and that the motion at the moment was concerned with local involvement in the future. There is an imposition on this borough and a target set by government and therefore the non-acceptance of the amendment results in an enormous imposed target which has been placed on everybody at the turn of the year.

Councillor Tindall stated that he could not support the motion as it stands and that it was a shame that the amendment had been lost. The Planning Bill will change the whole planning scene which means we will have to make changes to the local plan and it will be unrecognisable from the one that went through consultation in lots of areas. The borough needs to be consulted on this whole issue again.  Can’t support this as it stands.

Councillor Guest stated that local people have the knowledge about their local area and it is so important that planning officers use their local knowledge. Local elect members determine planning applications according to planning law and locally agreed planning policies, through the democratic process and local people having their say. The Development Management Committee enable this to happen and therefore weakening the role of the committee weakens local say, local input and local control of their area. This motion highlights the importance of local involvement and I will be pleased to support it.

Councillor Pringle stated that the motion has no teeth. Highlighting the issues of planning and the way it is being conducted across all levels of government has been rejected by the public and we need to send a strong message that echoes the views we are hearing back to central government. It has to be acknowledged that no through the endeavours of those who sought to minimise responses but is through the endeavours of the public themselves such as the Berkhamsted Citizens Association and the Grovehill Residents Association. We reached out to the public to genuinely consult and explain to them what is going on, rather than simply going through the motions. Many members of public who we spoke with, felt that it was completely inappropriate and insensitive to run a consultation during a pandemic. Many residents have been put through the most stressful time in history and deserved more respect.  I am proud to have spoken in favour of the amendment and to refuse the amendment exposes the true nature of the motion which is to say one thing but deliver very little and I will abstain.

Councillor England said: “I am disappointed that the amendment has been defeated, as it makes me wonder whether the council really wants to involve residents, and whether this once in a generation chance to address the need for local social housing will be meaningfully addressed.

So additionally, I would again recommend also that the letter ought to implore some rationality about the use of the latest ONS numbers, but that is just my logical hemisphere.

In conclusion: yes, I support the stating of our objection to the “reduction in involvement” – but, again, I think it makes the case for promising another R18... but as it stands I cannot vote for this Motion un-amended, so I will abstain.”

Councillor Birnie stated that this debate had nothing to do with the local plan but is attempting to change the governments mind on removing democracy from where it belongs that is with the people. If we send a letter about issues with have nothing to do with the White Paper we will be regarded as fools. This letter you are proposing to send is a focused criticism and brings in irrelevant and erroneous matters.  I intend to support this motion.

Councillor Wilkie stated that in regard to the motion in front of us, we could have seen the value between stripping the Bill and the Planning Motion and if we had received support or commitment to get the Regulation 18 re-done. We are being told by Councillors to our residents associations that it is definitely going ahead and then in this Chamber it appears we are playing a different role and therefore of course we don’t have the confidence to be able to support it.  It’s a shame and it’s a loss to the residents who we are here to serve.  I’m sorry but I will have to abstain on the motion.

The proposer and seconder of the Motion, Councillor Anderson and Councillor Williams, summed up the key points of the Motion and why they felt it should be supported.

A vote was then held on the original Motion:

22 for,

0 against,

12 abstentions,

Therefore the motion was carried.