Agenda item

To consider the preferred options version of the West Berkshire Housing Site Allocations Development Plan Document.

(Councillor Roger Hunneman declared a personal interest in Agenda item 18 by virtue of the fact that he lived adjacent to the Sandleford site. As his interest was personal and not a disclosable pecuniary interest he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter. Councillor Hunneman stated that if the Sandleford site became a topic of discussion he would declare a disclosable pecuniary interest, leave the chamber and not take part in the vote).

(Councillor Alan Macro declared a personal interest in Agenda item 18 by virtue of the fact that he lived close to one of the preferred site options in the document. As his interest was personal and not a disclosable pecuniary interest he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter. Councillor Macro stated that if this site became a topic of discussion he would declare a disclosable pecuniary interest, leave the chamber and not take part in the vote).

(Councillor Graham Jones declared a personal interest in Agenda item 18 by virtue of the fact that he owned a property in Lambourn from which he ran his business. As his interest was personal and not a disclosable pecuniary interest he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter. Councillor Jones stated that if this site became a topic of discussion he would declare a disclosable pecuniary interest, leave the chamber and not take part in the vote).

(Councillor Gordon Lundie declared a personal interest in Agenda item 18 by virtue of the fact that he lived close to a site that had not been included as a preferred site in the document. As his interest was personal and not a disclosable pecuniary interest he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Councillor Ieuan Tuck declared a personal interest in Agenda item 18 by virtue of the fact that he lived close to the Sandleford site. As his interest was personal and not a disclosable pecuniary interest he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Councillor Pamela Bale declared a personal interest in Agenda item 18 by virtue of the fact that that she lived opposite one of the sites in Pangbourne that had not been selected as a preferred site. As her interest was personal and not a disclosable pecuniary interest she determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Councillor Emma Webster noted that although she had previously declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in these matters there had been a change in circumstances and she no longer had a disclosable pecuniary interest and that she would like that to be recorded in the minutes.)

The Council considered a report (Agenda Item 18) concerning the preferred options version of the West Berkshire Housing Site Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD). Prior to the discussion on this item commencing the Chairman reminded those present that Members were being asked about the principle of consulting on this document and that it was not an opportunity to discuss the merits of individual sites.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Hilary Cole and seconded by Councillor Gordon Lundie:

That the Council:

1.      “approves for public consultation the preferred options version of the West Berkshire Housing Site Allocations  DPD

2.      delegates authority to the Head of Planning and Countryside to agree any minor typographical and presentational changes to the preferred options version of the DPD and supporting documentation before publication”.

Councillor Hilary Cole introduced the report which considered the preferred options version of the West Berkshire Housing Site Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD). Members were being asked to approve the document for consultation as stated by the Chairman. The Council was preparing the Housing Site Allocations DPD to allocate non-strategic housing sites across the District and to allocate sites for Gypsies and Travellers. All sites had been assessed in a consistent manner and more sites had been shortlisted than were required. 

The report also sought to update a number of the Council’s existing policies including:

·        two specific elements of CS3 (the policy on Sandleford Park) relating to highways access and education provision;

·        parking standards for residential developments;

The report also highlighted changes required to policies guiding development in the countryside which would be brought to the September 2014 Council meeting and if approved would be followed by a period of public consultation.

Councillor Cole also noted that it had been necessary to issue an addendum to this report. One of the preferred options CHI007 had been withdrawn by the owner after the paperwork had been issued. The final landscape assessment had also been received in respect of EUA003 which meant that the site could no longer be ruled out.

If Council was minded to approve the draft Housing Site Allocations DPD for consultation, this would take place for a seven week period from 25 July 2014 to 12 September 2014. Councillor Cole noted that the Council might be criticised about the timing of the consultation but the parish councils had already been consulted in January 2014 and their feedback had helped to identify a number of potential sites. The consultation would be promoted through a media campaign, would be available in libraries (including two in Reading), all the Council Offices and would also be highlighted in parish and community newsletters.

The process, once finalised, would result in an allocation of around 1500 homes which would contribute to the 10,500 dwellings identified in the Core Strategy. The timing of this process was in line with a requirement of the Planning Inspectorate for the Council to review its housing numbers in the Core Strategy three years following its adoption in July 2012. The final document would be submitted to Council in December 2014 for approval.

Councillor Cole thanked the Planning Policy Team for the time, effort and attention to detail they had put in to producing these documents.

Councillor Mollie Lock, while recognising the need to build more houses, was concerned about the impact this could have on some schools. She noted that some schools were landlocked and it would therefore be very difficult to extend them and she hoped that this would be taken into consideration in determining where new houses would be built.

Councillor Alan Macro also thanked the Planning Policy Team for their efforts. He noted that the Core Strategy had stated that Theale needed to undergo a period of consolidation and he felt that this document did not seem to be taking that into consideration. He felt that the number of houses proposed for Theale would overstretch the services in the village including the school. He did however welcome the changes to the parking standards.

Councillor Macro also noted that it was both local and national policy to protect the countryside and he therefore felt that it was important to utilise as much brownfield land as possible. He noted that there were a lot of empty office blocks in the district that could be converted to housing.

(Councillor Virginia von Celsing left the meeting at 8.31 and returned at 8.35pm).

In addition he noted that around 300 new homes were being proposed as part of the London Road Industrial Estate development which were not allowed for in this document. He stated that there appeared to not be the level of demand for office space as had previously been thought and there was therefore scope to reallocate some of this space.

Councillor Tony Linden stated that he had concerns about the proposed development at Pincents Lane and he would be urging his residents to respond to the consultation. Councillor James Podger stated that while he supported the consultation he would be making his views about the proposed development in Hungerford known during the consultation.

Councillor Julian Swift-Hook stated that he remained opposed to the development at Sandleford which was in his opinion an unsuitable and unsustainable site. He was however pleased to note that two schools and four accesses were now being proposed for the site.

(Due to his disclosable pecuniary interest in the Sandleford site, Councillor Roger Hunneman left the meeting during the discussion as the Sandleford development was being discussed. He left the chamber at 8.35pm, took no further part in the debate and did not vote on the matter).

Councillor Emma Webster was pleased to note the extent to which the consultation would be promoted as she felt that it was important that the public got the opportunity to state their views.

Councillor Royce Longton stated that his ward had already suffered over development and he was concerned that two large sites were being proposed for Burghfield when only one was needed.

Councillor Alan Law welcomed the revised parking policies. He also thanked the Portfolio Holder and the Planning Policy Team for the document which had been thoroughly researched and the papers had been very well prepared. He noted that the town and parish councils had already been consulted.

Councillor David Rendel queried what reassurance would be given to residents that sites that had been discounted would not become preferred sites later in the process.

Councillor Paul Bryant congratulated Officers, and especially Liz Alexander, on the work that they had done in sifting through the evidence. He stated that Officers had done a good job of minimising the impact on the district and that it was important to reach a consensus.

Councillor Garth Simpson stated that he would also be supporting his parish through the consultation process.

Councillor Jeff Brooks stated that residents would be puzzled why more development was being proposed when so many office blocks were standing empty. He would therefore not be voting in favour of the officer’s recommendation.

Councillor Tony Vickers noted that Officers had unfortunately not had sufficient resources to assess the employment land requirements as yet. He stated that it was evident that more housing and less employment land was required. Developers could build office spaces and then convert them into houses thereby avoiding making any s106 payments. Although he accepted that there would be an increase in Council Tax and income from the New Homes Bonus. This would still result in less funding for infrastructure such as schools. He stated that all the housing need in Thatcham and Newbury could be built on brownfield sites. 

Councillor Irene Neill acknowledged the point made by Councillor Lock about the inability for some schools to be extended. She stated that these were the types of issues that should be raised through the consultation so that an informed decision could be made. The Council would work with developers of the selected sites to come up with innovative ways of addressing these types of issues.

Councillor Graham Pask reminded Members that they were only determining whether or not to go out to consultation and that some of the detailed issues raised should be debated at the December Council meeting. He noted that about a third more houses were contained in the preferred options sites precisely so that genuine consultation could be undertaken. He noted that although the recession had not been as evident in West Berkshire as some other areas many businesses had opted not to expand and therefore the need for employment land would have reduced for a period of time. He stated that these were the types of issues that should be raised through the consultation.

Councillor Gordon Lundie thanked Councillor Cole and Officers for the work they had done in producing the document. He stated that the consultation would give residents the opportunity to tell the Council what they thought and the Council would take the consultation seriously. He reiterated that there was still opportunity to influence the decision and he did not want residents to think that this was a ‘done deal’.

(Councillor Manohar Gopal left the meeting at 9.00pm and returned at 9.02pm).

Councillor Lundie noted that the Council needed to ensure provision of employment land and had to strike a balance between land supply for houses and jobs. Councillor Lundie stated that he was disappointed that the Opposition did not feel that they could support the consultation.

Councillor Hilary Cole stated that employment land needs would be assessed through a separate process. Councillor Cole explained that only 1,426 houses were required in order to meet the 10,500 requirement. The preferred options exercise had identified 2,088 an excess of 622. She urged Members to consider the process holistically and not to focus only on their own wards and make a decision on what was best for the District as a whole.

(Councillor Keith Chopping left the meeting at 9.07pm and returned at 9.10pm).

Councillor Cole stated that she was disappointed that Opposition Members of the Planning Policy Task Group were not supporting the consultation. The Group had worked well together and that it was therefore disappointing that Councillors Longton, Macro and Vickers and previously Councillor Woodhams (when he was a member of the Group) who had participated in the production of the documents were no longer supporting it. She noted that they had voted in favour of the consultation at the Task Group meetings.

Councillor Keith Woodhams sought clarification as to whether the disclosure of information from the Task Group (which was a confidential meeting) could constitute a breach of the Code of Conduct. The Monitoring Officer explained that if Councillor Woodhams felt that there had been a breach he should make a complaint to the Standards Committee in writing. A determination could then be made.

In accordance with Procedure Rule 4.17.3 it was requisitioned that the voting on the Motion be recorded. The names of those Members voting for, against and abstaining were read to the Council as follows:

FOR the Motion:

Councillors Howard Bairstow, Pamela Bale, Jeff Beck, Brian Bedwell,  Dominic Boeck, Paul Bryant, Keith Chopping, Hilary Cole, Roger Croft, Marcus Franks, Dave Goff, Manohar Gopal, Paul Hewer, John Horton, Carol Jackson-Doerge, Mike Johnston, Graham Jones, Alan Law, Tony Linden, Gordon Lundie, Tim Metcalfe, Irene Neill, Graham Pask, James Podger, Andrew Rowles, Garth Simpson, Anthony Stansfeld, Ieuan Tuck, Virginia von Celsing, Quentin Webb, Emma Webster, Laszlo Zverko (32)

AGAINST the Motion:

Councillors David Allen, Jeff Brooks, Billy Drummond, Mollie Lock, Royce Longton, Alan Macro, Gwen Mason, Geoff Mayes,  David Rendel, Julian Swift-Hook, Tony Vickers, Keith Woodhams (12)

ABSTAINED:

None

The Motion was put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED.