Agenda item

Purpose: For Council to consider the Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the West Berkshire Local Plan Review 2022-2039 (LPR) post hearing sessions earlier this year. Also, the updated Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Assessment (SA/SEA) Report, addendum to the Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) and the Schedule of Proposed Changes to the Policies Map. The Council is asked to approve the publication of these documents for an 8-week period of public consultation as instructed by the Local Plan Inspector. This is a regulatory stage of the LPR process and requires Council resolution.

Council considered a report (Agenda Item 10) concerning the Proposed Main Modifications to the West Berkshire Local Plan Review (LPR).

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Denise Gaines and seconded by Councillor Jeff Brooks:

“That Council:

1)    Recognises that the Local Plan Review is still in the Examination Process and therefore, the Council is still under the Direction set out in the letter from the Minister of State for Housing, Planning and Building Safety dated 19 December 2023 that requires the Council to continue the Plan through the Examination Process.

2)    Notes that the Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the West Berkshire Local Plan Review 2022-2039 is published in accordance with Section 20 7(c) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended) for an eight week period of consultation.

3)    Notes that the accompanying updated Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Assessment (SA/SEA) Report on the Proposed Main Modifications and addendum to the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) of the Proposed Main Modifications are published in accordance with Section 20 7(c) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended) for an eight week period of consultation.

4)    Notes that the Schedule of Proposed Changes to the Policies Map is published for an eight week period of consultation.

5)    Delegates authority to the Executive Director of Place, in consultation with the Executive Portfolio Holder for Planning and Housing, to agree any further non-material refinements to the wording of the LPR and its accompanying documentation as appropriate, before consultation.”

Councillor Gaines introduced the report and highlighted that the Local Plan had been submitted by the previous Conservative led Administration before the election, and that the current Liberal Democrat Administration believed it to be flawed. Although the policies were sound, they did not believe that the housing site allocations were right for the residents of West Berkshire. She informed Council that the attempt to withdraw the plan was rejected by the Minister for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), who directed the Council to proceed with the process.

In addition, as the current Government had indicated that they would intervene and take over the Plan should the Council refuse to progress it, she believed that the only choice remaining for the Council was to proceed to the next step of the Local Plan process, the public consultation. She emphasised that the decision to move to consultation was only taken after every other avenue had been exhausted, including securing legal counsel, and that this was the final chance for the public to express their unhappiness with the Plan. Overall, in order to ensure that the Council had some influence on the Plan and that it was not taken over by the MHCLG, who could then force housing site allocations on the district, she encouraged Council to approve the recommendations.

Several Members expressed their concern about the Local Plan and indicated that they would not support the Motion. In relation to the site that had been allocated in Theale, it was indicated this would lead to an increase in the size of the village by 40 per cent, which was considered to be an unacceptably large increase. This development was also noted as potentially contributing to the existing surface and groundwater flooding issues.

In addition, multiple Members raised significant concerns about the site allocated at Pincents Lane, Tilehurst. As the character of the area was open and natural, bordering on the National Landscape, and was widely used for recreation by local residents, it was viewed as an unacceptable location for development. It was also emphasised that the additional housing would add to the already existing traffic issues in the area and could contribute to localised flooding. These Members also objected to the adjustment of the Tilehurst Settlement Boundary to include the site as this was seen as a way to potentially make development easier despite the multiple refusals of permission from the Council in the past. Overall, as Pincents Lane was not viewed as a suitable location for development by several Members, who also noted the public opinion against development on the site, they indicated that they would not support the Motion.

The housing allocation to the northeast of Thatcham was also mentioned as a serious concern. Members indicated that the development of 2,500 dwellings would be at the expense of local residents due to the effect it would have on local services. In addition, the lack of commitment to a new secondary school and the absence of details about the drainage network improvements that would be needed to deal with the expansion were also issues raised with the Plan. Overall, it was indicated by these Members that the proposed development in Thatcham was not the appropriate response to the Thatcham Strategic Growth Study.

Several Members also indicated that they did not believe the Plan process to be democratic or fair. It was highlighted that several Neighbourhood Development Plans (NDPs) had been adopted by the Council but that the Local Plan had allocated sites in those areas which were not included in NDPs, such as in Cold Ash. As central government could take over the plan, these Members questioned the usefulness or effectiveness of a local authority driven Local Plan.

In addition, it was noted that the wording of some policies had been weakened. Examples of this were over tree protections and the phasing of the delivery of infrastructure on a development site. Members also expressed a desire to see a greater range of policies included, such as on solar farms and tall buildings.

The point was made that parts of the Local Plan had been developed cross-party, and that it may have been approved without any additional sites if it had not been attempted to be withdrawn, which had caused delays in its adoption. However, it was clarified that although collaboration had happened on the policy document, the site allocations in the Plan were passed without the input or support of all the parties represented on the Council.

Overall, as the motion was only to proceed to the consultation on the Local Plan and was not for the acceptance of the Plan itself, Council agreed to proceed to this stage. It was highlighted however, that these additional housing sites were not appropriate and would not have been brought forward by the Council if they had the choice, but that if they did not proceed with the Plan, the whole process would be at risk of being taken over by central Government. 

The Motion was put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED.