Agenda item

To provide Members with information relating to Swifts and swift bricks, and their use in West Berkshire, following the Motion to Council by Councillor David Marsh and Councillor Carolyne Culver.

The Committee considered the report (Agenda Item 8) which provided information relating to swifts and swift bricks, and their use in West Berkshire following the Motion to Council by Councillor David Marsh.

Fiohn Menpes Greenslade (Senior Ecology Officer) presented the report on the feasibility of increasing the use of swift bricks within West Berkshire. The report responded to the Council motion proposing the installation of swift bricks within Council owned properties and requiring their inclusion in new developments.

In summary, the report recommended that the Motion and its proposals could not be supported. The date proposed in the Motion for the installation of swift bricks and boxes in suitable Council owned properties of May 2026 was too soon. There were also cost implications.

Other proposals within the Motion requested that swift bricks be subject to planning conditions. However, it was pointed out that conditions could only be put forward on a case by case basis and would need to meet the six tests for a planning condition that were set nationally.

However, efforts were being made to secure swift bricks and boxes where appropriate and where there was justification for doing so. This was being supported in the revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and would be strengthened in the Council’s next Local Plan.

It was pointed out that biodiversity net gain could not be achieved from swift bricks as they were an artificial enhancement.

Councillor David Marsh made the following points as the Mover of the Motion at Council:

·         He was disappointed that the Motion could not be supported, at least in principle. Councillor Marsh acknowledged that this could no longer be achieved by May 2026, but felt that the Council should endeavour to do as much as possible without incurring considerable expense. He felt that the cost could be met by developers for new builds.

·         Councillor Marsh proposed that officers could engage with other local authorities who had, to differing degrees, included requirements for swift bricks within their policies and within planning conditions. It would be useful to understand how this had been implemented and levels of success.

·         He had noted that some developers had voluntarily committed to providing swift bricks through the Homes for Nature programme.

·         Councillor Marsh felt that some aspects proposed by the Motion were a relatively straight forward win.

The following points were raised in the debate:

·         While it was noted that some developers had indicated a willingness to fund swift bricks, concerns were raised about the potential impact on affordable housing delivery and cost implications. The point was made that developers did routinely flag cost concerns for the provision of affordable housing.

·         It was noted that there could be no partial acceptance of the Motion, but Members felt it should be progressed as part of conversations on the new Local Plan.

·         Clare Lawrence (Executive Director for Place) explained that Central Government had placed a requirement on the Council to develop a new Local Plan within a period of 30 months. This would follow a more streamlined approach than in previous years. The existing Local Plan did enable the Council to negotiate ecological requirements with developers, and swift bricks was one of those options. Therefore, such conditions could be sought for appropriate schemes.

·         The ability to enforce the incorporation of swift bricks was flagged as a concern as there was a limit on the enforcement resource available.

·         It was suggested that the Council’s communications team could raise public awareness about swift bricks and encourage residents to voluntarily install them in their own properties.

Councillor Jeremy Cottam stated that while support could be given to the Motion in principle, he did not feel it could be recommended for acceptance to the Executive. He therefore proposed acceptance of the recommendation in the report to not support the Motion. This was seconded by Councillor Ross Mackinnon.

It was felt that clearer guidance was required on the actions that could be taken by scrutiny with future motions that came before the Scrutiny Committees. For example, could Motions be accepted in part or amended to include additional recommendations? This point was noted for future consideration by the Constitution Review Task Group.

Members discussed the large quantity of work that would be required for the next Local Plan Review in the absence of the Planning Advisory Group which had previously conducted this work within Part II discussions. Members did not feel that this detailed work could fall to the Scrutiny Committee as it did not have the necessary capacity.

The following recommendations were suggested for addition to the proposal to not support the Motion, which were agreed by Councillors Cottam and Mackinnon:

·         To request that officers engage with other local authorities who had, to differing degrees, included requirements for swift bricks within their policies and within planning conditions to understand what had been achieved in other areas.

·         That the next Local Plan explicitly include wording on swift bricks to strengthen biodiversity requirements.

·         That a cross-party working group needed to be formed with officers to undertake the next Local Plan Review.

Action:

·         Clearer guidance would be sought from the Constitution Review Task Group on the actions that could be taken by scrutiny with future motions that came before the Scrutiny Committees.

RESOLVED that the Motion could not be supported for the reasons outlined in the report. However, the recommendations agreed by the Committee would be put forward for consideration.