Agenda item

The Leader, or his nominee, to answer any questions raised by members of the public in accordance with Standing Order 13.

 

Note: the deadline for questions to be considered at this meeting is 12 noon on Thursday 8 July 2021.

 

At the time of publication one question had been received as follows:

 

Question from Mr A. McLuskey

In the light of the utter pointlessness of the Esso pipeline about to be laid from Southampton to Heathrow and the tarnished reputation of the organisation’s parent company will Spelthorne Council agree to press for a cancellation of this deeply disruptive and anti-environmental project?

The Mayor reported that, under Standing Order 13, ten questions had been received from four members of the public and that two of those questions (questions 3 and 5) had been grouped together for response.

 

1.    Question from Mr A. McLuskey

In the light of the utter pointlessness of the Esso pipeline about to be laid from Southampton to Heathrow and the tarnished reputation of the organisation’s parent company will Spelthorne Council agree to press for a cancellation of this deeply disruptive and anti-environmental project?

 

Response from the Leader, Councillor L. Nichols

The Southampton to London pipeline was subject to a Development Consent Order (DCO) which was approved by the Secretary of State for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy in October 2020. This decision followed a thorough and detailed examination process, conducted by the Planning Inspectorate. This pipeline is to be replaced by a new one, primarily due to the age and condition of the existing facility.

The Development Consent Order process sits under the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects regime. With this Consent Order having been approved by the Government, there is no means to challenge the decision. The Borough Council has a role in deciding applications for certain requirements of the DCO which are submitted by Esso.  These applications relate primarily to specific technical details of how the works are to be carried out and the processes involved. However the principle of the pipeline replacement has been agreed through the approved DCO in October 2020.

 

2.    Question from Mr A. Woodward

 

The Council persists in stating that they are legally bound to comply with the housing numbers from central Government, using this as a justification for releasing green belt and employing consultants to provide a rationale for this. There are clearly exceptional circumstances in Spelthorne, large areas of green belt, the area already covered by water and the high levels of flood risk, so could the Leader explain why no consideration has been given to using an alternative methodology for assessing housing numbers, as set out in the relevant Government guidance? Housing and economic needs assessment - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

 

The relevant paragraph of the guidance is given below.

 

Where an alternative approach results in a lower housing need figure than that identified using the standard method, the strategic policy-making authority will need to demonstrate, using robust evidence, that the figure is based on realistic assumptions of demographic growth and that there are exceptional local circumstances that justify deviating from the standard method. This will be tested at examination.

 

Response from the Chairman of the Environment and Sustainability Committee, Councillor I. Beardsmore

With the permission of the Mayor, Councillor I. Beardsmore prefaced his answers with updates about recent judgements by the Planning Inspectorate. Councillor I. Beardsmore explained that the updates were very relevant so some of the answers he would be providing.

 

Firstly, four weeks ago in Hertfordshire a predatory developer obtained planning permission to build100 houses in farmers field. It was opposed by the authorities concerned because the site was designated Green Belt land. At the enquiry the planning inspector found the authorities were seriously behind on meeting their housing need and did not have an up to date, valid, local plan. The field in question did not also have much relevance to the Greater Green Belt, which was fractured Green Belt like a lot of Spelthorne’s Green Belt. What needs to be understood about it is all official green belt defences were in place, they were not breached, they were circumvented. It is a very scary judgement that has sent shockwaves through local authorities and we (Spelthorne) are an authority that is also behind on meeting our housing delivery targets and do not have a local plan in place to tackle the short fall.

 

Secondly, in Hertfordshire again, the planning inspector wrote to the authority and said in very blunt terms, that if the authority did not release enough Green Belt to satisfy the shortfall in housing provision by 17 September 2021 he would declare their plan unsound.

 

Thirdly, just this morning (15 July 2021) Spelthorne received the judgement on the Bugle site. The Inspector has allowed 31 houses to be built on this Green Belt site, which Spelthorne strongly opposed. In simple terms everyone who said you cannot build on Spelthorne’s Green Belt have been proved wrong.

 

The good news in respect of this site, such as it is, is that the Inspector has only allowed the smaller of the two developments to go ahead and the Green Belt function of the site to prevent the coalescence of communities is maintained by retaining a Green strip running from East to West across the site. Nevertheless we cannot avoid the fact we have lost a Green Belt Site to predatory development.

 

Collectively these three rulings are a clear hardening of the Governments position in their drive to build more housing regardless of the views of  local residents and local authorities or the cost in Green Belt. We would be wise to heed these warnings however distasteful we find them.

 

Now turning to the question from Mr Woodward:

 

Prior to the Government’s requirement for local authorities to utilise the standard method to calculate housing need, there was no set methodology for assessing housing needs and local authorities were instead required to produce their own methodology. In 2015, Spelthorne produced its Strategic Housing Market Assessment which inputted various local factors to determine Spelthorne’s objectively assessed housing need, including household growth projections, migration, and affordability. This identified a housing need of between 552-757 dwellings per annum. The local housing need figure derived from the standard method (currently 611 dwellings per annum) falls within this range, therefore it can be expected that an alternative methodology is likely to produce a similar figure.

 

Planning Practice Guidance states that where an alternative approach is used, this will be subject to close scrutiny at examination and the local authority will need to demonstrate how they face extraordinary challenges to justify the approach. Spelthorne is subject to many planning constraints that affect a large number of authorities in the South East, for example Green Belt and flood risk in combination. As such, there are not considered to be extraordinary challenges to justify a different approach to calculating housing need once the Local Plan is examined by the Planning Inspectorate. Those few authorities that have attempted to utilise a lower housing number since the introduction of the standard methodology have failed, for example Sevenoaks and Chiltern & South Bucks. The number of Local Plans withdrawn or found unsound in 2020 was the highest in six years, highlighting the importance of having a sound strategy to guide development.

 

Further to this the NPG states that

 

The standard method uses a formula to identify the minimum number of homes expected to be planned for, in a way which addresses projected household growth and historic under-supply. The standard method set out below identifies a minimum annual housing need figure. It does not produce a housing requirement figure.

 

Whilst we might be able to play games debating the word Guidance, these are the rules the planning Inspectorate will follow. The key word is minimum. So our own number and the standard number are very similar.

 

The National Planning Policy Framework sets out that Green Belt boundaries may be amended in exceptional circumstances, with many authorities releasing Green Belt to meet housing needs. Spelthorne is aiming to produce a sound Local Plan strategy, supported by robust evidence, that overcomes the constraints present, demonstrating that we can meet our housing needs within the Borough. Developing an alternative methodology for calculating housing need is likely to contradict the evidence previously produced and is likely to be found unsound at examination.

 

3.    Questions 3 and 5 from Mr N. Rowe

The Council’s press release yesterday (7 July) “Spelthorne Borough Council to make crucial decisions on new Local Plan strategy” begs a number of questions to which we hope the Environment & Sustainability Committee, or the Chair of E&S at full Council, will provide answers:

 

There is detail on setting a target amount of ‘greenbelt’ to be released for development.

 

Why has the Committee not also defined a target limit for the height of new developments in Staines?

 

How will the results of the recent public consultation on the future development of Staines play into any decision on high-rise developments in Staines, who will do the analysis, who will draw conclusions from it, and how open/transparent will this process be?

 

Response from the Chairman of the Environment and Sustainability Committee, Councillor I. Beardsmore

 

From 8 May to 29 June, the Council consulted on the Staines Development Framework Objectives and Options consultation.   The questionnaire included 35 free-text questions, and letters and emails were accepted as responses.  There is a significant amount of information for officers to review, quantify and qualify.  Officers are currently reviewing all the responses to the consultation.  A response document will be produced and published on the Council's website in due course.

 

The responses to the consultation will be analysed by both officers and consultants, David Lock Associates, and reported to the cross-party Members’ Staines Development Framework Task Group.  The responses and further work, particularly on sites, will inform the next stage of the production of the Staines Development Framework. At all stages Members will make decisions.

 

We are keen to be making the best use of previously developed brownfield sites across the borough, including within in Staines-upon-Thames. Until the Staines Town Centre Framework is at a more advanced stage, there would not be sufficient information available to consider setting a limit for the height of new developments. Further consideration would also need to be given to whether any height restrictions were uniform or staggered, if an absolute height limit (in storeys or metres) is the most appropriate way of achieving the best urban design and making the best use of brownfield sites in Staines, one of our most accessible and well-connected locations

 

4.    Question from Mr N. Rowe

The Council’s press release yesterday (7 July) “Spelthorne Borough Council to make crucial decisions on new Local Plan strategy” begs a number of questions to which we hope the Environment & Sustainability Committee, or the Chair of E&S at full Council, will provide answers:

 

There is reference in the press release to excluding any sites not already identified for inclusion in the Local Plan.

 

Why have other sites been excluded for consideration, particularly as this will inevitably encourage overdevelopment of identified sites?

 

Response from the Chairman of the Environment and Sustainability Committee, Councillor I. Beardsmore

 

The list of Green Belt sites provided alongside the amended strategy, agreed by the Environment and Sustainability Committee on 13 July 2021, are indicative at this stage, meaning they have not been finalised and currently represent the type of sites likely to fit with the proposed strategy and meet our development needs. All sites will be subject to a more detailed assessment, in line with our Site Selection Methodology, and discussion with the Local Plan Task Group (that includes a councillor from every ward in the Borough). These sites will also be subject to public consultation whereby residents will have the opportunity to comment on the proposals.

 

5.    Question from Mr N. Rowe

The Committee expresses a wish to “proceed without further delay” with implementing the Local Plan. How can the Council proceed with the Local Plan when the work has not been started (let alone completed) to determine whether Staines’ infrastructure can be upgraded (let alone afforded) to accommodate the level of development currently contemplated? The government has made it clear that infrastructure constraints should be taken into account when setting “a sustainable housing target” and work on this has not yet been done. In recent discussions I was told by Surrey County Council (in a meeting also attended by an SCC Councillor) that an analysis of the infrastructure issues relating to the draft development plan for Staines would probably cost about a £100,000 which SCC would undertake if asked to do so. 

 

Response from the Chairman of the Environment and Sustainability Committee, Councillor I. Beardsmore

 

The Borough Council have been engaged with the County Council and other service providers over infrastructure needs for some time.  Discussions regarding this are based on the housing requirement for the Borough over the plan period. This requirement is set by the Government through the standard methodology. The service providers are therefore aware of the housing requirements and where the planned growth is expected to take place in the Borough. A draft Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) has been produced which has followed two rounds of consultation with service providers, including the County Council on various types of provision such as education, highways, and healthcare amongst others.

 

To further progress work on the IDP, it is necessary to identify the site allocations and quantum of development within these. This will allow for a Part 2 of the IDP to be carried out which will include detailed assessment of each site allocation and any necessary infrastructure required to deliver these sites, if any. This work will be undertaken in consultation with the service providers. The County Council will play a crucial role in providing data and advice to allow these requirements to be identified and solutions to be found.

 

6.    Question from Mrs K. Sanders (OAN)

How can Council agree that we should plan to meet 611 dpa without also agreeing at the same time an Infrastructure Delivery Plan that matches that and does the Council concede that, by not taking a proportionate approach to housing growth, unconstrained growth of 9,165 units cannot be sustainably built on 70% of the land in Spelthorne (i.e. Spelthorne's total area less the 30% covered by the absolute environmental constraints of waterbodies and functional floodplain)?

 

Response from the Chairman of the Environment and Sustainability Committee, Councillor I. Beardsmore

 

The Infrastructure Delivery Plan is currently in draft form and has been produced with input from infrastructure providers, including healthcare, education, and highways, so they can plan for our future growth. Two rounds of consultation with infrastructure bodies have taken place to identify the current and predicted gaps in infrastructure provision based on our housing figure and spatial strategy over the Plan period. The housing figure derived from the standard methodology has been fed into the process since the early stages of IDP development to enable infrastructure to be adequately planned for. Key stakeholders and providers have engaged in each stage of the process so that they are aware of the planned growth and can react appropriately to enable the correct level of provision.

 

It must be noted that on many infra-structure issues Spelthorne are not the responsible authority for service delivery. As such, far more weight will be given to the response of the responsible authority.

 

Once site allocations have been firmed up with the amount of development, there will be a ‘Part 2’ to the Infrastructure Delivery Plan which will consider in greater detail each site allocation and look at specific needs for those sites and what is required to deliver these.

 

Councillors and Officers are working together to develop a robust and sound Local Plan strategy that meets our development needs on suitable sites. Through the next stage of the Local Plan – the Pre-submission draft Local Plan - allocation sites and the Local Plan approach will be subject to a Sustainability Appraisal which will assess the sustainability of the options and will also identify any opportunities to improve sustainability. 

 

Infrastructure provision and sustainability are key considerations in developing the Local Plan strategy and a holistic approach to ensuring the proposed level of development can be supported by the necessary infrastructure has been key throughout the Local Plan process.

 

7.    Question from Mrs K. Sanders (OAN)

Given councillors repeated commitment to Spelthorne's wider Green Belt as a whole (which covers 65% of Spelthorne's total area), does the Council agree that being forced to build 100% of the 9,165 units on only 35% of Spelthorne (give or take 1 or 2%) would represent a strong reason for restricting the housing number under Para 11b of the NPPF?

 

Response from the Chairman of the Environment and Sustainability Committee, Councillor I. Beardsmore

 

National planning policy and guidance sets out that local authorities should identify enough land to meet their needs, then re-visit assumptions if it is unable to do so and also engage with Duty to Cooperate partners, before they conclude that needs cannot be met at Local Plan examination.

 

We have a broad evidence base to support our Local Plan, we have revisited our site assessments and have carried out additional work to increase our land supply in the urban area. After reviewing this evidence, we could be in a position to meet our housing needs in full. It is only after this in-depth assessment that we have looked towards a small amount of Green Belt release. We need to show an inspector that we have done all we can to meet our needs and if we fail to do so, there is a risk of our plan being found unsound.

 

Paragraph 11b of the NPPF sets out that there must be a strong reason for restricting the level of planned growth – we need to utilise our evidence base to support the Local Plan strategy and show that we have tried to meet our needs and only then can we consider a lower target. We are aiming to develop a logical and robust Local Plan strategy that is able to meet our needs and is based on evidence, and as such feel it is appropriate to meet our housing needs.

 

8.    Question from Mrs K. Sanders (OAN)

Would Council concede that any self-imposed limit of Green Belt release is arbitrary and not strategically robust or defensible (be it the 0.6% of all Green Belt land now suggested or the 1.6% proposed by the Preferred Options consultation) and that there is no built-in mechanism to shut Pandora's Box once it has been opened?

 

Response from the Chairman of the Environment and Sustainability Committee, Councillor I. Beardsmore

 

This is not a self-imposed limit. Rather, it is the minimum quantity to meet our needs based on the data we have now. We have made it clear this is open to review and change.

 

Following the Preferred Options consultation, we made every effort to consider whether a brownfield-only approach would be feasible, through undertaking a call for sites to identify new development sites and reviewing existing site capacities and densities to boost the potential supply from urban sites. We concluded that a brownfield-only approach would not meet our needs and would also result in the majority of new homes being flatted developments. We determined that a minor amount of Green Belt release would allow us to meet our housing needs in full and provide a better mix of housing for the community.

 

If the strategy is agreed, the 0.6% of Green Belt release is the amount of land that will meet our housing needs following further analysis of the urban area. This level of Green Belt released would be fixed through this Local Plan, although a future Local Plan will need to reconsider how best to meet housing needs. There is however uncertainty in terms of planning policy and how housing requirements will manifest in future, so at present we need to produce a Local Plan that meets our development needs and follows a robust and sound approach that is best for current and future generations, using the current available evidence. 

 

9.    Question from Mrs K. Sanders (OAN)

By the Council's own admission, it has now exhausted all potential options for meeting needs in the urban area. Where does Council propose putting any requisite essential infrastructure yet to be identified (e.g. schools and health services) that would go along with such a high level of growth? Also, given that Surrey County Council classes, to all intents and purposes, all of the non-urban area in Spelthorne as a Biodiversity Opportunity Area, would Council agree that any housing or commercial development in the non-urban area would be detrimental to biodiversity and would make it more difficult for the borough to achieve the mandatory biodiversity net gain, which is likely to become planning law in 2023, potentially before Spelthorne's new Local Plan is signed off?

 

Having exhausted all potential options for meeting needs in the urban area and having done the Duty to Cooperate exercise, would the Council agree it is now time to calculate a "Policy on" housing target?

 

Response from the Chairman of the Environment and Sustainability Committee, Councillor I. Beardsmore

 

The Infrastructure Delivery Plan is being produced with input from relevant stakeholders to help meet the need for local services alongside housing growth. The Borough Council continue to work with the service providers to identify how the needs can be met in the most deliverable and accessible way. 

 

I refer you back to my previous answer on the responsible authority to deal with infrastructure and service delivery.

 

Biodiversity Opportunity Areas are identified to promote improvements to ecological sites as part of the wider Surrey network. The mandating of biodiversity net gain provides opportunity to secure improvements to areas of existing or potential biodiversity value. All new developments will be required to fulfil biodiversity net gain and other Local Plan policy requirements through the planning application stage. The Borough Council’s policies in the new Local Plan will reflect biodiversity net gain requirements, as appropriate. A Biodiversity and Planning Action Plan is being developed to inform the development of the Local Plan policies and where in the Borough benefits can be secured through Net Gain.

 

Do not forget the Government have already trashed promises of environmental targets once. We have an officer here who, when working with another authority, witnessed a year of work on Biodiversity thrown out the window.

 

The Council is aiming to identify a suitable Local Plan strategy that will meet development needs. This strategy maximises development opportunities in the urban area whilst also having regard for the need to deliver much needed family housing through a small amount of Green Belt release. If agreed, in pursuing this proposed Local Plan strategy, we feel we can meet our housing needs in full therefore it is appropriate to continue the development of the Plan using this approach.