Agenda item

Notices of Motion

Meeting of Council, Monday, 15th October, 2012 2.30 pm (Item 15.)

Proposed by: Councillor McKinlay

Seconded by: Councillor McCloskey

Motion on proposed changes to the planning system by the Secretary of State

This Council wishes the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to note the following:

That Cheltenham Borough Council believes that local people, through their democratically elected local authorities, are the most suitable judges of what development is acceptable in an area and the suitable level of contributions that developers need to make;

This Council opposes:

· The Secretary of State's proposals for the Planning Inspectorate to have powers to override agreements between Councils and developers over the number of affordable housing units allocated to planning applications.

· The Secretary of State’s proposals for planning permission – currently required for extensions of more than three or four metres from the rear wall of any home – to only be needed for those reaching beyond 8m for detached homes and 6m for others

· The Secretary of State's intention to override Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act of 1990 which will allow developers to immediately appeal to the Planning Inspectorate over the allocation of affordable housing units in any scheme they maybe concerned with.

· The Secretary of State's proposals for the Planning Inspectorate to take planning powers away from local authorities which he deems to be slow or of making poor quality planning decisions in determining applications.

This Council notes that the current Coalition government did listen earlier in the year over concerns regarding the National Planning Policy Framework and revised its plans accordingly, so urges the Government to listen to the concerns being expressed by the cross-party LGA.

Minutes:

Councillor McKinlay proposed the following motion which was seconded by Councillor McCloskey:

This Council wishes the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to note the following:

This Council opposes:

In proposing the motion Councillor McKinlay had done so as he felt that the proposals posed issues regarding potential loss of control at a local level. Members had debated the pros and cons of the JCS at great length but if these proposals were to become a reality this Council would have very little influence on what happened in Cheltenham. This was a concern for many councils and to the LGA as a whole rather than being a political concern and the motion sought for this Council to form part of a national campaign to get Mr Pickles, the Secretary of State to change his mind. Particular concerns with the Secretary of State’s proposals were;

· The Planning Inspectorate would have the power to overturn the figure of 40% affordable housing set by this authority.

· Extensions for which planning process needed to be followed and for which there had been 300-400 applications over the last x years, would no longer be required for extensions under 8 meters.

· Given the drive from Central Government to build as many houses as possible, singularly the most serious threat was the proposal to take powers away from local authorities.

Governments aim may be to boost the economy through these proposals but they had serious implications for local authorities.

Members who supported the motion did so as they shared concerns about the loss of decision making powers at a local level. These members felt the proposals regarding planning permission could result in the ground floor of some terraced properties potentially doubling and that this posed a risk of back garden development. The proposal that the Planning Inspectorate would have powers to overturn a local authority’s decision on the amount of affordable housing in a development on appeal was a major concern for members and those that supported the motion felt that this could result in developments with little or no affordable housing provision in Cheltenham.

Some member indicated that they may abstain because they were unhappy about the reference to Mr Pickles and feared that it was a political issue.

One member refuted the claim that the changes being proposed would threaten this council. These changes would instead affect those councils where councillors were unwilling to make difficult decisions and the powers would only be enforced in extreme circumstances.

It was suggested by one member who had previously worked for the LGA that it was a surprisingly non party political organisation which was currently chaired by a Conservative member and lobbied on behalf of local authorities. He reiterated that the LGA had drafted the motion before Council and felt that there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate that this was not a partisan point.

A small number of members disagreed with the proposals suggestion that the planning system in any way restrained economic development, though admitted that there may be ways of improving the system.

As seconder of the motion, Councillor McCloskey had been happy to support the motion as she felt that the proposal flew in the face of the Localism Act, and read an excerpt from ‘the Plain English Guide to the Localism Act’:-

“For too long, central government has hoarded and concentrated power. Trying to improve people’s lives by imposing decisions, setting targets and demanding inspections from Whitehall simply doesn’t work. It creates bureaucracy. It leaves no room for adaptation to reflect local circumstances or innovation to deliver services more effectively and at lower cost. And it leaves people feeling ‘done to’ and imposed upon - the very opposite of the

sense of participation and involvement on which a healthy democracy thrives.”

In particular relation to Planning the guide said:

“There are however some significant flaws in the planning system that this Government inherited. Planning did not give members of the public enough influence over decisions that make a big difference to their lives. Too often, power was exercised by people who are not directly affected by the decisions they were taking. This meant, understandably, that people often resented what they saw as decisions and plans being foisted on them. The result was a confrontational and adversarial system where many applications end up being fought over.

The Localism Act contains provisions to make the planning system clearer, more democratic and more effective.”

And it was for these reasons that she respectfully asked members to support the motion.

In summing up Councillor McKinlay echoed comments of other members and stated that whilst the LGA was a political group, it was not party political. The LGA were simply attempting to get local authorities to give their views on this matter formally and the same resolution had been passed by a number of councils across the country, not all of whom were Liberal Democrat councils. His references to Mr Pickles in his introduction were because the Secretary of State had been actively promoting these proposals in the media and in his opinion had been critical of local authorities in the process

Upon a vote the motion was CARRIED (Voting: 23 Favour / 1 Against / 2 Abstentions)