Agenda item

To consider a motion submitted in accordance with Council procedure rule 11.

As this motion would have the effect of rescinding a decision of Council of 10 December 2024 (agenda item 11b, Local Development Scheme), in accordance with Council procedure rule 22, the motion has been supported by Councillors Oliver Cooper, Vicky Edwards, Debbie Morris, Philip Hearn, Andrea Fraser, Chris Alley, Ciaran Reed, Lisa Hudson, Mike Sims and Reena Ranger.

The motion is for consideration under Council procedure rule 11.6, to be noted by Council and referred to a meeting of the Policy and Resources Committee. Accordingly, the motion is not before Council for debate.

The Chair called on Councillor Oliver Cooper to present his motion.

Councillor Cooper indicated that he felt his motion was the most important decision to be made in the history of the Council. It provided a choice between protecting the green belt, through submitting a local plan based on the low growth option pursued by the council, or a local plan that was based on the housing targets set by the government.

He reminded Council of how the emerging National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) had established higher housing targets, which particularly impacted the Three Rivers area, and made it more challenging to use provisions in the NPPF allowing Councils to protect green belts. He identified a number of schemes that the Council had both included in the draft local plan, and considered for inclusion, and reminded the Council that these sites would not be sufficient to meet the government’s housing targets.

He also reminded Council that since it met on 12 December to agree the Local Development Scheme, the final version of the NPPF had been published. This provides Councils the opportunity to submit plans based on the previous NPPF until 12 March, rather than January, as had been anticipated. He felt that the proposed amendments to the Council’s decision in December, which had been rejected, could have provided the Council with a way to submit the local plan in March had they been taken forward.

In conclusion, he emphasised that the years of work the Council had invested in the local plan should not be wasted and the Council put at the mercy of the government’s policies and housing targets.

The Chair called on Councillor Vicky Edwards to second the motion. In doing so, Councillor Edwards emphasised the urgent need to submit the local plan under the previous NPPF and the potential impact of the new government housing targets, which she felt would have a terrible impact on the district. She explained the 5 criteria in the new NPPF that would have to be met to protect the green belt, which she felt was a high bar to achieve, and the only safe route for the Council was to submit the current draft local plan by 12 March.

Councillor Ciaran Reed indicated to the Chair that he wished to propose an amendment. With the general assent of Council, the Chair adjourned the meeting to allow for Councillor Reed’s proposed amendment to be circulated to members for consideration. The amendment is included at addendum 1 to these minutes.

The meeting adjourned from 7:54pm to 8:04pm

Councillor Reed introduced his amendment. He explained that the amendment sought to remove the requirement to produce further documents that he felt would be unnecessary ahead of the local plan submission, most notably the Gypsy and Traveller Site Assessment. He referred to other councils which had submitted their local plans for examination with a commitment to submitting the Gypsy and Traveller Site Assessment at a later date. Agreement of the amendment would give the best chance to submit a local plan by 12 March, even if work needed to be undertaken at a later date.

Councillor Philip Hearn seconded the amendment and reserved his right to speak.

The Chair invited members to debate the motion.

Councillor Oliver Cooper spoke in support of the amendment. He cited the case of Maidstone Borough Council, as well as other Councils, who had submitted their local plans for examination without up to date Gypsy and Traveller policies. He believed there may also be other policy documents that were not necessary prior to submission, and the amendment delegated officers to make this determination.

Councillor Stephen Giles-Medhurst spoke against the amendment. He believed that the other authorities that had submitted plans without an up-to-date Gypsy and Traveller Site Assessment had done so in different circumstances. He reminded Council that since the low growth option had been brought forward, some sites had been withdrawn so a new sustainability assessment was required, and furthermore, the Council’s officers had been clear that failure to submit a complete plan would mean that the Planning Inspector would automatically find it unsound. He drew Council’s attention to the timeframes involved, and to achieve submission of the local plan by 12 March would require the regulation 19 consultation to start within 2 weeks.

Councillor Cooper requested his right of reply. The Chair considered that as Councillor Cooper had already spoken to the amendment, he would move to the vote.

With 11 votes in favour, and 18 against, the amendment FELL.

Councillor Stephen Giles-Medhurst indicated he wished to propose an amendment. With the general assent of the Council, the Chair adjourned the meeting to allow for Councillor Giles-Medhurst’s proposed amendment to be circulated to members for consideration. The amendment is included at addendum 1 to these minutes.

The meeting adjourned from 8:15pm to 8:25pm. Councillor Tom Smith joined the meeting at 8:30pm.

Councillor Stephen Giles-Medhurst introduced his amendment. He started by referring to the 15,000 homes that had been mentioned previously in the meeting as the new growth target, and indicated that this was an 18 year target, whereas the local plan was over a 16 year period and plan preparation would be taken into account.

Councillor Giles-Medhurst confirmed his belief the Council had received clear legal and professional expertise that if the plan was submitted in March, it would be immediately rejected as it was deficient. He referenced organisations he had spoken to that accepted the plan was inadequate at present, and he believed that the best way to protect the green belt was to obtain further evidence to demonstrate the exceptional circumstances as had been agreed by Council in December.

The motion was seconded by Councillor Chris Mitchell, who reserved his right to speak.

The Chair invited members to debate the motion.

Several members raised concerns over the timeframe that the existing plan had taken to be developed, and that it had not been submitted ahead of the new NPPF being produced. They referenced previous statements made by the Council and Councillors about wanting to protect the green belt and timeframes put forward for the local plan which had not been achieved.

In response, it was highlighted that the Council had to respond to changing national planning policy as the local plan was developed, and listen and respond to comments made in feedback.

Reference was made to sites within the green belt that Councillors were concerned would come forwards, particularly if the Council did not have an agreed local plan which could lead to speculative proposals being submitted by developers. On the other hand, it was argued, obtaining further evidence to support the green belt under the new NPPF rather than submitting a defective plan at this stage could help the Council more in the long-term. Whilst there were clear divisions as to how the Council could best protect the green belt, there was consensus of the need to work together to do so.

Councillor Chris Mitchell, exercising his right to speak, noted that he wished the motion was the way forwards, but that for him the best way to protect the green belt was to proceed with the decision from December, but that the programme had to be accelerated and closely monitored in order to submit a robust local plan.

Councillor Oliver Cooper responded to the amendment. Whilst he did not support it, he recognised the importance of clear timeframes and monitoring of these if the amendment was passed. He emphasised that whilst officers can advice Councillors on the way forward, ultimately it is for Councillors to determine and his view, the Council’s leadership had not delivered.

The amendment was put to the vote and with 18 votes in favour and 11 votes against, was CARRIED

The debate returned to the substantive motion, as amended.

Concern was raised that the new timeline within the amended motion would lead to the council committing to the housing targets within the new NPPF. This was disputed, in that the intention was to obtain further evidence to enable the council to submit a plan based on the low growth model. Funding would be included within the Council’s forthcoming budget to support the work required, and the Council may be eligible for grant funding.

Councillor Ciaran Reed left the meeting from 9:25pm to 9:26pm

Concern remained amongst Councillors as to whether the new timelines would be achieved, and how residents, whom the Councillors were representing, would feel about the situation and the level of Councillor responsibility for it. Arguments were made as to whether the green belt would be more likely to be protected through a plan being submitted in March, or through obtaining further evidence and submitting a plan on revised timelines.

During debate, Councillor Stephen Giles-Medhurst raised a point of personal explanation to clarify that some members were in receipt of special responsibility allowances, and not salaries. Councillor Oliver Cooper raised a point of order that a personal explanation must relate to something that Councillor has previously said. The Chair requested for Council to resume debate.

In his right of reply, Councillor Oliver Cooper reminded Council that the current local plan was adopted in 2013, and the Council has consistently failed to achieve a 5 year land supply which placed it at risk from speculative development. He felt had his proposals in October to accelerate the timetable for submitting the local plan be adopted, it might now have been possible to do so. In concluding, he re-iterated the importance of the green belt and committed to working to support policies to protect it.

The Chair put the motion, as amended, to the vote and with 19 votes in favour and 11 against, it was CARRIED

The meeting closed at 9:40pm