Agenda item

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

The Mayor reported that, under Standing Order 14, two questions had been received from members of the public.

1. Question and statement of context from Peter Bower:

“At the Environment and Sustainability Committee meeting on 8 November, Cllr Beecher produced data that one might have expected to give the Council pause for thought. Seventeen Councils have delayed submission of their Local Plan and a further four have withdrawn their Local Plan from Investigation pending clarity on the government’s new policy relating to baseline data used to determine a borough’s housing target. Indeed, one Council has been told by the Planning Inspector to use 2018 data which will reduce it’s housing target by close to 20%. If Spelthorne used 2018 data the borough’s housing target would drop from 618 p.a. to 489 p.a. – a reduction of 1,935 over the Plan period. Eliminating use of all the Local Plan’s allocated green belt sites would consume 740 of this number, leaving 1,195 to reduce the allocations elsewhere in the borough, including in Staines which is currently required to absorb 55% of the borough’s entire housing target.

Question:

Given 21 Councils have delayed or withdrawn their Local Plans pending clarity on Government policy; that one Council was told by the Inspector to use 2018 data to lower their housing target; and that those responsible for Spelthorne’s Plan have made a powerful case in the Foreword to it against the current housing target of 618 p.a. (asserting that it “will damage our environment and ruin the character of our small and highly constrained borough”), why has the Council refused to follow other boroughs either in producing a Plan using 2018 data, or awaiting clarity on the government’s housing policy?”

Response from Councillor Beardsmore, Chair of the Environment and Sustainability Committee:

“I will start with the 2018 data. I went online to look this up and just by reading the very first link on the browser I knew the answer. Nevertheless I did follow up the link and it confirmed what was so obvious from just looking at the link.

The link referred to the plan as North Herts Local Plan 2011-2031. 2011!There is your answer right there.

I will explain.

We are working under a regime known as the Standard Methodology which was introduced in 2017. That methodology currently locks us in to the 2014 dataset. Councils whose plan was already in progress in 2017 were allowed to use a procedure known as transitional arrangements. As part of those transitional arrangements, N Herts were allowed to base their housing numbers on the 2018 dataset. Before you ask, almost the first thing I did when I got this job the first time was enquire whether we could use a more up-to-date data set than the 2014. The answer from the Ministry was a very blunt NO.

Currently the 2017 methodology is still firmly linked to the 2014 data.

This does sum up so much of the plan process, namely the endless repetition of simple facts. The issue of transitional arrangement has been raised several times by councillors and answered several times.

This Council voted by a majority of 3:! In favour of the Local Plan, which I can advise has now been submitted to the Secretary of State for examination. There is no doubt these questions will be raised, debated, and answered at the hearing sessions as they have been submitted as part of representations, which the appointed inspector will read and consider in full. On Tuesday this week, we heard announcements form Michael Gove MP, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, regarding potential changes to the planning system and what these could be. However, officers are waiting for the detail of these changes that will be published before Christmas before they can brief Members on possible implications and what options there are for the Local Plan as submitted. This is likely to be early in the New Year. Whatever the changes are, what we do know is hope that the new Local Plan will enable us to implement a zoning approach to the most sensitive areas in Staines, which we can’t do with our existing policies. The reality is that a lower housing target would do nothing to offer Staines that protection because it does not operate as a cap on future development and this is a sustainable town centre where sites will be expected to be optimised. Indeed, the statement is very clear under the heading ‘Brownfield First’ that town centre sites should be used before others and there is reference to measures being introduced to make this easier to achieve.

So it’s coming anyway, with or without a Local Plan and whatever the numbers say. The zoning policy on those identified areas is as far as we can push with valid planning reasons and part of that justification is that we will be meeting our need in full across the Borough. If we had a lower housing need figure, we could reduce the amount of Green Belt release, but don’t forget it is these sites that will deliver 50% affordable housing of the 30% on Brownfield sites, provide family homes with gardens, a new sixth form college, a replacement community centre, and sports and recreation enhancements. Do we really want to lose those benefits? In favour of a Plan that delivers 98% of new homes as flats with a Brownfield-only strategy? This Council agreed the Local Plan because it recognises that whilst it won’t please everyone, it represents the sound and sensible approach.”

2. Question and statement of context from Alan Doyle:

“The recent LGA Peer Review made a number of positive remarks about the Council. However – rather pointedly – it also made a number of recommendations for improvement. Amongst other issues, the Peer Review Panel noted:

·         There is poor behaviour by some Councillors which is widely recognised as damaging your reputation and is affecting morale and the ability to retain and recruit staff

·         Councillors appear focused upon the internal political rather than the bigger external picture

·         There needs to be recognition that the intense political dance is affecting your reputation, is costing you money, and could ultimately affect the delivery of Council services for your residents and businesses

·         Members need to fully appreciate the financial implications of their decision making – or not making decisions

·         Accept the need for higher density in urban areas if you wish to continue to protect the green belt, as set out in the Local Plan that you have agreed to and are about to submit

·         You need to understand the necessary and vital relationship between density and viability

Question:

By the time the Review Panel returns next year, will the Council be able to show that it has ended:

·         The repeated submission of questions to Council, which has taken up so much officer time, and which the Information Commissioner would describe as vexatious, and;

·         The continued filibustering attempts to prevent the submission of the Local Plan to the Planning Inspectorate, which officers have more than once pointed out would be at huge cost to us all?”

Response from Councillor Boughtflower, Leader of the Council:

“Members of the public have the right to participate in Council and other committee meetings by submitting questions in accordance with the Council’s Constitution. Any further restriction relating to public questions will require amendment to Council standing orders which must be first considered by the Council’s Standards Committee and agreed by full Council.

Actually, the biggest issue was not the public questions but the ongoing queries to officers from some Councillors and members of the public. Let me be absolutely clear, the large majority of these questions were genuine and honest but clearly, especially in the last few months, a growing number of them were, as you say, vexatious and repeating things that have already been asked and answered on multiple occasions and in some cases being little more than rants, which most people learned to ignore. It was the cumulative effects of these that were really consuming officer time.

As to the nature of the council that will be in place when the peer review return. Nothing to do with me. Before they come back there will be an election so the nature of the Council they report back to will be entirely in your gift, Mr Doyle, and the residents of Spelthorne.”