Agenda item

Executive Portfolio Update: Planning and People

To receive an update on key areas of work within the Planning and People Executive Portfolio over the last twelve months.

Minutes:

The Committee received a report summarising the Council’s work during the first six months of the 2021/22 municipal year which were encompassed within the Planning and People Executive Portfolio; a portfolio which covered a number of areas including planning policy and conservation, planning enforcement, development management, building control, drainage and land charges.

 

It was reported that at the current time, work to develop a new Local Plan was focused on identifying sufficient suitable land to meet both the Government’s identified housing need and the five year land supply targets for the Borough and the requirement for additional Gypsy and Traveller sites; the constrained nature of the Borough’s landscape with its proximity to amongst other things Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Green Belt and areas of flooding and the lack of Suitable Alternative Green Spaces (SANGs) to mitigate homes developed in the west of the Borough made this particularly challenging.

 

The Committee was informed that the latest Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (2020) showed a significant need for Gypsy and Traveller pitches in the Borough and it was stressed that without a viable Gypsy and Traveller Policy the Local Plan would be found to be unsound at the examination stage.  This would in turn leave the Borough vulnerable to unsuitable and unsustainable developments.

 

The Council’s target of 35% of new housing provided in developments of more than 10 units to be affordable had been missed for a number of years.  A fact that was attributed to a combination of developers stating that the provision of a high volume of affordable housing made developments unviable and negotiating a reduction in the number of affordable units to be provided and many developments being completed through the Prior Approvals process which did not place a requirement on developers to deliver a proportion of affordable homes.

 

Developers seeking to reduce the levels of affordable housing in a development were required to provide a viability assessment which was independently checked before any agreements were reached.  However the Council was bound by the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework when assessing requests for a reduction.  It was noted that the situation with regard to affordable housing was expected to be exacerbated by the introduction of the Government’s First Homes Scheme which would require the first 25% of any new development to be classified as a First Home and offered for sale at a reduced rate.

 

There had been a significant increase in the numbers of planning applications from homeowners seeking to build extensions submitted for consideration.   Consequently, it had proved a challenge for officers to always determine applications within the statutory timescales of with 64% of minor development applications being determined within the 8 week statutory timeframe and 67% of major development applications being determined with in the 13 week timeframe during the first quarter of 2020/21.  It was noted that the threshold for Government intervention in respect of determining planning applications was 50%.  To alleviate pressure on the Development Management Team and speed up the determination of planning applications two additional planning officers, who would focus primarily on reducing the backlog of applications and lead on the delivery of major cases, had been appointed on a temporary basis until March 2022.

 

The Committee noted that over the winter of 2020/21, the flood defences and attention measures put in place by the Council had performed as intended and consequently no reports of flooding had been received that could be attributed to fall within the Council’s responsibility.  It was clarified that work on Frimley Fuel Allotments had not been completed because, at the current time, it was not considered to be a problem area and consequently resources had been diverted to other areas of the Borough where need was greater.

 

The Committee commended the achievements of the Council Drainage Section which had very limited resources and questioned the resilience of the service in view of the fact the drainage service was delivered by a single officer.

 

The Committee noted the update.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Supporting documents: