Agenda item

To consider, in accordance with Full Council Procedure Rule 1.1-H, the following Notice of Motion – ‘The Planning White Paper,’ to be moved by Councillor Crow and seconded by Councillor Lamb.

The Full Council considered Notice of Motion 1 – The Planning White Paper as set out in the Full Council’s agenda.  The Motion was moved and presented by Councillor Crow and seconded and supported by Councillor Lamb.

During the debate, Councillors P Smith, Purdy, Irvine, Mullins, Fiveash, Burrett and Guidera all spoke in support of the Notice of Motion. Councillor Crow used his right of reply at the end of the debate. The Mayor then called for a vote on the Notice of Motion.

Before the vote commenced, it was confirmed that none the Labour or Conservative Members requested to vote as an individual, rather through their respective Group’s

Block Vote.

For the nomination: Labour Block vote of 15 votes, Conservative Block vote of 17 votes, Councillors Fiveash and Sudan. (34)

Against the nominations: None. (0)

Abstentions: None. (0)

RESOLVED

That the Council notes:

1)         The publication by Government of the White Paper, ‘Planning for the Future’ on 6 August 2020, which set out proposals on reforms to the planning process for the future.

2)         That currently, the vast majority of planning applications are given the go ahead by local authority planning officers and committees, with permission granted to around 9 out of 10 applications across the UK.

3)         While some of the analysis of the problems existing within the planning service are accepted, too many of the solutions put forward will not help the situation but may worsen it.

4)         That the following proposals contained within the White Paper are of particular concern regarding their potential impact for planning in Crawley:

·      Removal of the Duty to Cooperate, meaning there is no requirement to cooperate with regard to major developments close to shared boundaries, as well as address unmet needs.

·      The setting of a binding housing target based on constraints which are unclear.

·      That a formula-based approach does not avoid the need to make substantive, strategic decisions about the distribution of housing, and has the disadvantage of a greater perceived lack of transparency and legitimacy when applied at local level.

·      The potential loss of local democracy, accountability and engagement as part of the development management process, if increased delegation reduces or minimises the future role of the Planning Committee.

·      The contradiction of increasing Permitted Development Rights, particularly for proposals such as two storey upward extensions, against the White Paper’s increasing emphasis on good design and automated decisions against Design Codes.

·      That a nationally set Infrastructure Levy will fail to take account of differences in viability. Conversely, there is a concern that the threshold below which the Levy won’t be charged could result in development taking place in viability challenging areas within the borough, but making no contribution to infrastructure or affordable housing, therefore risking a reduction in the future provision of new affordable housing. 

and that the Council resolves to:

1)         Highlight these concerns within the response provided by the Council to the consultation.

2)         On behalf of all members, instruct the Chief Executive to formally write to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, stating the Council’s cross-party concern to these proposals and to seek revised proposals that better serve future planning in Crawley.