Agenda item

(1)      Motion to Review and Strengthen the Council’s Low Carbon Advertising Policies

          Councillor Petty (attached)

(2)      Planning for the Future and the Planning Bill

          Councillor Bell, on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Group (attached)

Planning for the Future and the Planning Bill (Councillor Bell) (Agenda Item 6 (2))

In introducing the Motion Councillor Bell sought members’ support for the proposals as set out.

Motion: Moved by Council Crockford-Hawley and seconded by Councillor Canniford

“Council notes: 

•         The significant concerns that have been expressed about the planning reforms proposed by the Conservative Government in their Planning for the Future white paper.

•         The Government’s intention to introduce a Planning Bill, announced in the Queen’s Speech in May, which builds on the Planning for the Future white paper.

Council is concerned that Government proposals: 

•         Perpetuate an arbitrary target-driven approach that will require 20,085 homes in North Somerset, irrespective of evidence of community need or land supply. 

•         Take away many of the opportunities for communities and their locally elected representatives to have a final say on how their areas develop.

•         Reduce or remove the right of residents to object to applications near them by giving automatic rights to build in ‘growth’ areas, and increase permitted development rights, risk unregulated growth and unsustainable communities.

•         Remove local Section 106 payments and the Community Infrastructure Levy for infrastructure and replace them with a national levy; it is unclear how the new level of developer contributions would work.

•         Fail to recognise the climate emergency by making it a key priority that would enable the planning system to respond to the climate crisis.

Council believes that the Government’s Planning Bill should give local councils greater powers to: 

•         Challenge unrealistic housing targets.

•         Deliver improved infrastructure alongside new developments.

•         Require new development to meet high sustainability standards.

•         Require quality design standards as part of new developments.

•         Strengthen developer contributions to essential services including health, employment, and education.

•         Prevent land banking and poor delivery by developers where planning consents are in place.

Council resolves to write to the Government and our local MPs to set out our concerns and to emphasise our belief that local councils, in consultation with their businesses and residents, are best placed to understand the issues in their area and respond with an appropriate spatial strategy.”

Seven members signalled their support for a debate on the Motion. 

Councillor Crockford-Hawley spoke in support of his Motion and urged all members to support it.  He stressed he was not against housing or other development in North Somerset but that as a local authority this council, together with its businesses and residents, should be in charge of how the area developed rather than taking instruction from central government on arbitrary new homes targets, regardless of community need or land supply. 

In seconding the Motion Councillor Canniford referred to the challenges faced by the previous administration in responding to the government’s unrealistic housing targets.  He referred to the importance of addressing some of the misinformation being circulated and highlighted the impact of the Government’s proposals on development in the area, with the removal of the rights of local councils and residents to object to applications in their area, the removal of Section 106 payments to fund local infrastructure and a reduction in the council’s powers to require quality developments and provide homes people wanted to live in.

In discussing the Motion members expressed support for the proposals.  Reference was made to the following issues: the benefits of a developers’ charter with planning reforms to address land banking and poor delivery by developers and recognise and respond to the climate emergency; the need to challenge unrealistic housing targets which created division amongst local communities and failed to address local housing need or land supply; the widespread opposition to the proposals across all political parties and by the Local Government Association (LGA), resulting in a delay in bringing forward the White Paper; the need for planning departments to take on additional work and new skills, and the importance of securing additional funding to support already overstretched departments; the need to move away from an arbitrary target-driven approach to one that focusses on local need, real affordability and sustainability; the need for an imaginative approach to housing development given limited land resources and the avoidance of development on flood plains.

Following further discussion, it was 

Resolved: that the Motion as set out in full above be approved and adopted.