Agenda item

To set out a response to a Motion brought to the 12 September 2019 Council meeting.

The Council considered a report (Agenda Item 16) which set out a response to a motion brought to the September 2019 Council meeting.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Hilary Cole and seconded by Councillor Alan Law:

That the Council:

“does not support the motion for the reasons set out in the report”.

Councillor Hilary Cole in introducing the response commented that West Berkshire was a Plan led authority which took public consultation very seriously. She informed Members that the legislation required all Councillors, at a full Council meeting, to make the final decision on which sites to include in the plan. This decision was made after and open process which included setting out the reasoning in the public domain. In addition the decision was subject to an independent examination in public.

The motion made reference to transparency and democracy but failed to take cognisance of the legislative requirements set out in Part 2 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended) and The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 (as amended).

Councillor Hilary Cole highlighted that the Housing Sites Allocation Development Plan Document had over 4488 consultees, resulting in over 18000 comments, at the first stage and a further 616 consultees at the final stage. Both consultations were agreed by Council and following the second consultation all the evidence and proposals were subjected to an independent public examination.

She also reminded Members that parishes could make use of Neighbourhood Planning processes should they wish to do so. A number of parishes including Burghfield, Cold Ash, Compton, Hermitage, Hungerford, Lambourn and Tilehurst had embarked on this journey and Stratfield Mortimer had already adopted a Neighbourhood Plan.

Councillor Alan Macro stated that he was disappointed with the response. Anecdotal evidence gathered during campaigning for the General Election showed that residents did not feel involved in decision making which led to cynicism on their part. He reiterated the need for this process to be transparent given the impact that it had on land values.

Councillor Macro commented that when a planning application was submitted and there were ten or more letters of objection the matter was determined at a public meeting. The objectors were able to address the committee about their concerns. However during the site allocation process where a proposal could affect hundreds of residents that lived close by they were not given the opportunity to address Members at the Council meeting. The Planning Advisory Group was a private meeting. Making the proposed changes would make the process more transparent and would provide the opportunity for residents to make changes to proposals.

Councillor Alan Law was concerned that the motion could mislead members of the public who were not conversant with the process. He highlighted that during the previous Local Planning process the proposed sites at Pincents Hill and Siege Cross were both withdrawn following the public consultation process. In addition a site in Kintbury was also removed during the process in 2016.

Councillor Law explained that the purpose of the Planning Advisory Group was set up to advise the Portfolio Holder for Planning as well as Officers and its role was to assist in the formulation of policy. In terms of the Local Plan PAGs role was to review the local criteria, processes and policies for amongst other things site selection. They then manage the application of the policies and processes to bring the number of sites put forward to a more manageable number. These sites are then subjected to a range of consultations including with councillors, parish councillors and the public. These sites are discussed at full Council and ultimately by the Secretary of State’s Independent Inspector. The Statement of Community Involvement which was also included on this agenda set out the Council’s commitment to transparency and public consultation.

The Motion was put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED.

Prior to the vote being taken Councillor Lee Dillon requested that, in accordance with paragraph 4.17.3, the vote be recorded. The requisite number of Members supported the motion by standing in their place.

Councillor Hilary Cole asked Members to support the motion not to support the motion proposed at the September 2019 meeting by Councillor Macro.

For the Motion

Steve Ardagh-Walter,  Jeff Beck, Dennis Benneyworth, Dominic Boeck, Graham Bridgman, Hilary Cole, James Cole, Lynne Doherty, Clive Hooker, Gareth Hurley, Rick Jones, Alan Law, Tony Linden, Tom Marino, Ross Mackinnon, Graham Pask, Claire Rowles, Garth Simpson, Richard Somner, Jo Stewart, Andy Williamson, Howard Woollaston (22)

Against the Motion

Adrian Abbs, Phil Barnett, Jeff Brooks, Jeremy Cottam, Carolyne Culver, Lee Dillon, Billy Drummond, Owen Jeffery, Nassar Kessell, Alan Macro, David Marsh, Steve Masters, Geoff Mayes, Erik Pattenden, Martha Vickers, Tony Vickers, Keith Woodhams (17)