A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Council and councillors

Agenda item

PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE: WHITE PAPER

To receive Report No. 124/2020 from the Interim Strategic Director for Places.

Minutes:

Councillor G Brown introduced Report no: 124/2020 and noted that Council were being asked to debate and comment on the Planning White Paper to inform the response of Cabinet.

 

Councillor G Brown commented that there was a distinct lack of detail and substance to the proposal to the paper, the origin of which was formed as a research document of a think tank. He reported that no practising Town Planners were on the panel during preparation of the report. Thanks was given to the officers involved in drafting the comprehensive response.

 

Councillor Hemsley seconded the report.

 

Councillor Jones thanked officers for the response and noted that the drafted response raised many questions. She expressed concern about S106 and CIL monies being used for general funding and commented that community engagement would be greatly diminished and digitising information would not encourage people to get involved. On the matter of Climate change she suggested that the response only made parting reference to it and considered the response to be an opportunity to address environmental issues including carbon reduction.  She stated that the current planning process ensures that housing developments were in suitable and sustainable places and reported that Rutland need houses but we there was a need for houses where there were employment opportunities.

 

Councillor A Brown said considered the white paper to be ill-conceived and ill- thought out. In contrast, he stated that the drafted response was well written and addressed some of the anomalies in the paper. He believed that the proposal on the white paper would take away involvement and scrutiny at a local level and would further erode the powers of local authorities with local communities having less involvement in local planning applications. He considered there to be distinct lack of clarity and detail in the report and suggested that it would only benefit housing developers, suggesting that it could be perceived to be a developers’ charter.

 

Councillor Ainsley commented that the white paper was complex document and explained that he believed that Rutland need to develop so that young people have tenure to live and remain in Rutland. Reform of planning system was long overdue as there was a lack of affordable housing and housing for young people. He commented that a consolidated levy should not be incurred at expense of individual. He concurred that there was a need for the planning system to be streamlined and noted that there were some positive aspects of the document and he supported the thrust of it. However, he noted that there were numerous questions outstanding and there was not enough detail. He thanked the Planning Policy team for writing the robust response.

 

Councillor Razzell commented that the document had taken large amount of time from officers and thanked them for their detailed response. He suggested that the document needed to be written for the user and not the owner and those making a planning application would be hindered and not helped. He commented that the delivery of the white paper had been a sprint to the door which lacked detail and clarity.

 

Councillor Waller stated that with regards to planning policy, one size did not fit all. The attempt contained within the white paper to simplifying the planning process should be applauded. However, simplifying it through IT would benefit developers but not those living with bad broadband or questionable IT skills and would exclude a lot of people. Areas identified for Growth, Renewal or Protected would in some instances overlap with the potential of designating areas at street level. She commented that without detail and answers to questions it was difficult to comment. Councillor Waller further questioned what a sustainable development would mean to Rutland in comparison to other counties and raised concerns about the number of affordable homes being built in any new developments.

 

Councillor Oxley stressed that the paper proposed to drive the development of 300,000 homes being built. He stated that this would disproportionality impact rural areas due to the availability of land to build; there was less space and land for development in existing urban areas.  He echoed the comment made by Councillor A Brown that it could be perceived to be a developers charter. He further questioned whether travellers’ sites had been properly considered in the paper

 

Councillor Woodley commented that he potential cost incurred should the white paper be approved were not emphasised enough and noted that there could be a substantial economic impact if the Local Plan had to be redrafted as a result of the white paper. Such changes would put a considerable impact the Council’s capital and additional funding would be needed from government should such changes be necessary.

 

Councillor Powell thanked officers for their excellent response and expressed her concerns about the lack of evidence contained within the white paper. The Planning system needed an overhaul but there was a lack of solid evidence and detail. Councillor Powell requested that the response be strengthened on environmental issues and mention should be made to the impact on agriculture particularly with regards to the rural landscape.

 

Councillor MacCartney addressed the lack of detail in the white paper and commented that it was very poorly thought through. She suggested it could allow developers to exploit loop holds to avoid providing affordable housing and noted that the Planning Committee would be powerless in preventing distasteful and sweeping developments.

 

Councillor Waller urged the Leadership to take every opportunity to lobby against the proposal. Designing housing of the future needed to have more focus on affordable housing and asked that Cabinet work with other Councils to lobby against this.

 

Councillor A Brown commented that moving towards a digital age could be problematic and the transitional time, effort and cost could be significant.

 

Councillor Hemsley explained that he and Cabinet had been working with the MP for Rutland and with the Unitary Council Network and other rural councils in lobbying against the white paper.

 

Councillor Baines stated that he echoed a lot of the concerns already raised. He commented he would be interested to know if there was nothing included to protect the Rutland Water. He considered it to be a top down report which preached localism but practised centralism

 

Councillor G Brown thanked all members for their contribution in the discussion and agreed that the officers’ response was excellent. He commented that he would circulate the link to the Parliamentary debate to all Councillors and noted that one of the select committees had proposed to open an enquiry into the white paper.

Climate change – comments are very weak and we will be making more of this following the comments. Total lack of clarity and details on hearings being held. He explained that Rutland Council would be very robust in the response to this especially with support from the local MP arguing against.

 

Councillor Baines proposed from the Chair that Council commends the officers’ response to Cabinet and ask that Cabinet take notice of the Council debate at their meeting on the 27th October 2020

 

Councillor G Brown seconded the proposal.

 

There voted in favour:

 

Councillor Ainsley, Baines, Begy, Blanksby, A Brown, G Brown, Burrows, Coleman, Fox, Hemsley, Jones, Lowe, MacCartney, Oxley, Payne, Powell, Razzell, Stephenson, Waller, Walters, Webb, Wilby and Woodley.

 

There were no votes against and no abstentions:

 

RESOLVED:

 

That Council commends the officers’ response to Cabinet and ask that Cabinet take notice of the Council debate at their meeting on the 27th October 2020.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Supporting documents: