To consider the following Notice of Motion to be proposed by Councillor Godfrey and seconded by Councillor Brook:
“That this Council, following the recent decision by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, not to proceed with any changes to the calculation for new housing targets, commits to offering for public consultation the option that no development allocations outside the existing development boundaries are to be included in the revised Local plan, unless agreed by the local Parish or Town Council.”
Minutes:
In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 10, a Motion was submitted by Councillor Godfrey as follows. The Motion was seconded by Councillor Brook.
“That this Council, following the recent decision by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, not to proceed with any changes to the calculation for new housing targets, commits to offering for public consultation the option that no development allocations outside the existing development boundaries are to be included in the revised Local Plan, unless agreed by the local Parish or Town Council.”
Councillor Godfrey introduced the Motion and in summary raised the following points:
· The Motion was not seeking to predetermine the content of a revised Local Plan. Rather, it was wanting to make sure that there were opportunities for it to be shaped by those most affected by it and therefore to help gain acceptance for its eventual adoption.
· Restrictions brought by the pandemic made this even more important as councillors were currently unable to knock on doors, or able to attend consultation events and so may not be fully aware of what residents really thought.
· Consultation undertaken on the existing Local Plan had received praise and had won awards for the council. It also helped achieve acceptance from residents, meaning that its eventual implementation had been easier.
· Any Local Plan that required an increase in housing would require previously undeveloped land to be built upon and the environmental impact of this should be assessed.
· All greenfield land in the district falls within one of the parish or town council areas. Each parish or town council has a thorough understanding of local needs and aspirations of their areas. The council therefore must engage with them and have their agreement for any development outside existing settlement boundaries. This would help alleviate any concerns of lack of engagement with local residents.
During the debate which followed, in summary, the following points were made:
· The Motion should not be accepted as there were so many unknowns, including, for example, whether new housing requirements may be able to be achieved within existing settlement boundaries. The Motion may give an impression that the council would not consider development outside of settlement boundaries, when it may have to.
· Consultation on the previous Local Plan actively encouraged participation and many events had taken place. This helped gain the acceptance of residents that some development was necessary and had help gained their trust with the council. Consultation with parish and town councils was needed to help achieve cooperation.
· There was concern that large strategic development areas were being driven by the council’s commitment to the ‘Statement of Common Ground’ with the Partnership for South Hampshire (PfSH). There was no requirement for PfSH to formally consult with the public or local parish and town councils on proposals that may impact on their areas.
· Councillor Porter (Cabinet Member for Built Environment and Wellbeing) confirmed that the public were to be soon consulted on the Local Plan Strategic Issues and Priorities and she explained how this process would take place and why the proposals in Motion were not suitable for public consultation as a development strategy option. The council would work hard to engage with all parish and town council and communities in the plan-making process.
· Communities in the southern parishes were particularly concerned as there were no defined development gaps here. There must be sensible allocation and amounts of new homes.
· Councillor Brook, as seconder of the Motion, exercised her right of reply. In summary, she highlighted that the Motion was proposing open dialogue with communities regarding thoughts and ideas for the new Local Plan. She raised several points, including that the Winchester Town Forum had developed its emerging ‘Vision for Winchester’ document, whilst other communities elsewhere had not benefited from any comparative work undertaken by the council – including participation in any collective vision for the district. She highlighted that consultation on proposals for the Welbourne development near Wickham and Fareham had previously been extensive, and that the council appeared unwilling to work closely with Havant Borough Council regarding development close to border with Winchester. Council Brook was also concerned at the lack of any obvious benefit to the council from being part of the PfSH.
Before voting on the Motion, the mover of the Motion (Councillor Godfrey) then gave his right of reply.
· The council should engage with representatives of communities and this should be standard approach.
·
· The Local Plan required a more open and transparent engagement with residents, especially with so many restrictions in place at the current time.
· There should be more public consultation at this time, especially as there may be demand for new housing being brought forward from the council’s association with PfSH.
As it was the request of more than five Members present in the meeting, a recorded vote was taken on the motion. Councillor Humby had left the meeting before the recorded vote was taken.
Division Lists
The following Members voted in favour of the motion:
Councillors Brook, Clementon, Cook, Cunningham, Gemmell, Godfrey, Horrill, Lumby, Mather, McLean, Miller, Pearson, Read, Ruffell, Scott, Weston
The following Members voted against the motion:
Councillors Achwal, Becker, Bell, Bentote, Bronk, Clear, Craske,
Cutler, Evans, Fern, Ferguson, Gordon-Smith, Green, Hiscock, Hutchison,
Laming, Learney, Murphy, Porter, Power, Prince, Rutter, Thompson, Tod,
Weir, Williams
There were no Members abstaining from voting on the
motion
Motion lost.
RESOLVED:
That the motion as set out above be not carried.