Agenda item

Cabinet member: Councillor I. J. Beardsmore

The Council has received a petition with 609 signatories requesting that Spelthorne Borough Council reconsiders its proposals to release two Green Belt sites within Charlton Village for the development of housing.

The matter is referred to Cabinet for consideration and a response.

In accordance with Standing Order 16.4 in the Constitution, the options available to Cabinet are:

(a) to take the action the petition requests; or

(b) not to take the action requested for reasons put forward in the debate; or

(c) to note the petition and keep the matter under review.

Cabinet considered 6 petitions relating to 5 locations, which had been submitted in response to the consultation on the Local Plan. The petitions were in relation to:

• Charlton Village – 609 signatories
• Land between Old Charlton Road and the M3, Shepperton – 280 signatories
• Stratton Road, Sunbury – 534 signatories
• Land to the west of Town Lane, Stanwell – 227 signatories on 2 petitions
• Land adjacent to Windmill Gate Estate, Sunbury – 232 signatories

The statements for each petition were set out in both the main agenda for this meeting and in a supplementary agenda.

Four petitioners attended the meeting to address the Cabinet. Councillor R.W. Sider BEM, as ward councillor took the opportunity to address the Council in relation to the petition for Land between Old Charlton Road and the M3, Shepperton.

The Leader made the following remarks in relation to the petitioners’ comments:

“I would like to thank all of the residents here tonight for taking the time to come and present your concerns about the Local Plan and about the possible loss of Green Belt. 

We have petitions from Charlton Village, Shepperton, Sunbury and Stanwell. 

All these are understandable and all Cabinet Members will be sympathetic to the individual circumstances relating to each site.  We all have a commitment to the Green Belt – that is a commitment which we have made publicly as a Council and a ruling Conservative Group.  We do not wish to see development on the Green Belt. 

This present consultation follows on from our earlier issues and options consultation May 2018 in which we highlighted some of the issues facing the Borough including the possibility of the loss of Green Belt or the option of intensifying uses in the town centres.

I would stress to all the petitioners tonight that this Council is still consulting, this is a genuine consultation and no conclusions have yet been reached.  All these views will be taken into account.  I would however caution residents that with regards to the Local Plan – there are no simple answers.  If any resident thinks there is an easy answer, then, with respect, you may have failed to understand the very difficult circumstances in which we find ourselves.  As councillors we have to take into account the interests of all our residents, present and future.  We have to find housing solutions for children who are still at school and who are not present at this meeting.  This means as councillors we have to make difficult decisions in the public interest which will stand the test of time. 

We have objections with the housing numbers which have been given to us by government and we are seeking to negotiate a better solution for the Borough.  That has to be a priority and I have given my personal commitment to that task. 

All of the proposals here tonight are rightly looking out for what they see as the public interest.  All those views are valid, but you will appreciate that some of the implications of your submissions will be unpalatable to others.  For instance, if we accepted all these proposals we could be asking residents in Staines and Ashford to take many more high-rise blocks.  There will be lots of people opposed to that option too. 

So in conclusion, thank you for submitting your petitions.  All views will be considered.  The Council has hard decisions ahead.  We need the involvement of the whole community to find the right answers and so your participation and presentations are very gratefully and humbly received.”

The Leader invited the Strategic Planning portfolio holder, Councillor I.J. Beardsmore to respond to the petitions. He commented as follows:

“Thank you all for your efforts.

Firstly, the most important thing to say is that no Spelthorne councillor wants to build on Green Belt. We have been forced to potentially consider some weakly performing Green Belt sites for housing because of the huge increase in demand for the provision of new housing, forced on us by central government.  Not surprisingly, Many residents across the borough have reacted strongly to proposals in their own area.   

Weakly performing Green Belt was identified via the Green Belt Assessment and methodology agreed by the council last year. This is online and clearly lays out the methodology used. The rules for Green Belt can be found in the NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) para 135, these are the rules and criteria we have to use. Again this is publically available and online.

Occasionally other reasons can be found to reject a weakly performing Green Belt site, these are few and far between, which does not mean we will not make the effort - because we will - which is where your representations and any new evidence they supply is so important.

I need to dispel a few misconceptions that are still going around despite repeated attempts to explain the truth.

The council does not own any of the sites referred to in the petitions. In fact we own hardly any of the sites in the entire consultation. Spelthorne has not submitted any of these sites for building, the landowners have. We will not be making any money from them, the land owners and developers will.

Despite being repeatedly told the information is false, it is still being said that we have a huge number of Brownfield sites we are not considering. Wrong. There was a previous Housing Land Availability Assessment which has identified sites for approximately 5,500 houses. Every one of them on Brownfield sites. So those Brownfield sites have already been included. This includes 29 re-considered in this consultation to potentially transfer them from that pot to this. The fact it is recommended not to transfer them to this ‘pot’ simply means they will stay in the other ‘pot’. Either way they are all under consideration

Now to the petitions

I  cannot answer any of the petitions specifically because the work to analyse all the submissions has hardly started and these petitions, as well as all the other submissions, are likely to contain new information that has to be looked at carefully. I will though, make some general observations.

There is a lot of anecdotal information about what is and is not right for a Gypsy and Traveller site.  They are a hard group to communicate with which does not make the problem any easier. However, as far as I am aware, nothing has yet been found that is beyond the anecdotal – i.e. is evidence based sufficiently to withstand cross-examination at an inquiry. So we are left with trying to find the best solution from what we know, since finding these sites is a legal obligation on the council. I am also aware that there are potentially access issues with two of these sites and that will have to be looked at in more detail.

We are in discussions with the local health providers and the results of these discussions, along with infrastructure and other issues will all be incorporated into an infrastructure assessment.

Flooding. We will have to take a look at photographic evidence that has been produced in some cases, and incorporate that with the latest EA flood data updates that are currently 9 months late. Developers will of course argue that these can be overcome with a SUDs scheme (Sustainable Urban Drainage). That may be possible but only up to a point. That ‘Point’ will have to be separately analysed in more detail for each individual site with input from the Environment Agency.

Biodiversity related issues. I do not believe any of the sites have been identified as specifically a BOA (Biodiversity Opportunity Area), but whether or not some are close enough to a recognised BOA to have potential impacts on that BOA will have to be looked at again, and separately for each site.

As of two days ago when we last checked, Surrey were still confident they could meet the extra demand for school places across Spelthorne if the proposed new building was to go ahead approximately as laid out.

Surrey’s formal response to the consultation is also quite clear about roads. If the proposals were to go ahead broadly as laid out, collectively they would not have a severe impact on the road network, and therefore could not be opposed on those grounds. YES I find this hard to swallow but legally Surrey are the competent authority on this and we have to listen to what they say, however hard we find it to believe them. Further mitigation will be needed to accommodate the traffic generated by specific sites but this will be delivered if they go ahead.”

In accordance with Standing Order 16.4 in the Constitution, the options open to Cabinet were:

(a) to take the action the petition requests; or

(b) not to take the action requested for reasons put forward in the debate; or

(c) to note the petition and keep the matter under review.

Resolved that Cabinet notes the petitions and asks the Local Plan Working Party to review the matters they have raised.