The recent consultation by the Government on “Changes to the planning system” received over 2,300 responses, including responses from the cross-party Local Government Association and our own Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service.
The proposed reforms mean that in future local voice in planning will happen at the Local Plan making stage. The responses expressed strong concerns that this means that communities will not be able to influence individual applications in the same way as they do now which could further alienate communities.
Section 106 agreements are the primary route through which council housing is currently delivered. The proposed new Infrastructure Levy lacks detail as to how it will maintain existing levels of funding for affordable housing especially if threshold is raised to 40/50 for onsite requirement. It would also bypass Parish Councils and communities.
Last month the House of Commons with cross party support from MPs called on the Government to protect residents’ rights to object to individual planning applications in their own neighbourhood area if the area is zoned for growth or renewal.
This Council
Decision:
Council Agreed the following motion:
This Council
Minutes:
Councillor Pippa Heylings proposed and Councillor Dr Tumi Hawkins seconded the following motion:
The recent consultation by the Government on “Changes to the planning system” received over 2,300 responses, including responses from the cross-party Local Government Association and our own Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service.
The proposed reforms mean that in future local voice in planning will happen at the Local Plan making stage. The responses expressed strong concerns that this means that communities will not be able to influence individual applications in the same way as they do now which could further alienate communities.
Section 106 agreements are the primary route through which council housing is currently delivered. The proposed new Infrastructure Levy lacks detail as to how it will maintain existing levels of funding for affordable housing especially if threshold is raised to 40/50 for onsite requirement. It would also bypass Parish Councils and communities.
Last month the House of Commons with cross party support from MPs called on the Government to protect residents’ rights to object to individual planning applications in their own neighbourhood area if the area is zoned for growth or renewal.
This Council
Councillor Heather Williams proposed that the words “work together with developers” be removed, as planning worked best when local communities were empowered and their views were heard by the local planning authority. The proposed amendment was seconded by Councillor Deborah Roberts, who supported most of the motion, but was concerned that it empowered developers instead of local residents.
Councillor Pippa Heylings explained that whilst she understood their concerns, she could not accept the amendment, as the focus of the motion was to prevent the Government’s reforms from taking power away from residents and local authorities in their dealings with developers. The amendment could confuse the main point of the motion.
Councillor Nick Wright expressed his alarm at the desire to work with developers, as they were supportive of the Government reforms and answered only to shareholder and to profits. He explained that only a tiny percentage of applications were decided by councillors and to pledge to work with developers would further dilute the influence of our communities in the decision making process.
Councillor Dr Aidan Van de Weyer suggested that those supporting the amendment misunderstood the need to empower communities in their discussions with developers in the planning process. To agree the amendment would reduce the weight of the original motion.
Councillor Dr Richard Williams stated that the developers had no incentive to talk to communities and he supported the amendment which was in keeping with the original motion.
Councillor Brian Milnes was surprised to hear Conservative councillors complaining about the role of developers in the planning process. The purpose of the motion was to express concerns about the new legislation and this amendment added nothing to that debate.
Councillor Ruth Betson welcomed the amendment as in her experience the local community was marginalised in matters regarding local development, as was the case with Cambourne Town Council and the proposed development on Cambourne Business Park.
Upon the amendment to the motion being put, a vote was taken and were cast as follows:
In favour (8):
Councillors Shrobona Bhattacharya, Tom Bygott, Graham Cone, Mark Howell, Deborah Roberts, Dr Richard Williams, Heather Williams and Nick Wright.
Against (16):
Councillors Henry Batchelor, John Batchelor, Paul Bearpark, Anna Bradnam, Dr Martin Cahn, Nigel Cathcart, Claire Daunton, Neil Gough, Sally Ann Hart, Dr Tumi Hawkins, Pippa Heylings, Tony Mason, Brian Milnes, Judith Rippeth, Dr Aidan Van de Weyer and John Williams.
Abstain (1):
Councillor Peter Fane
The amendment was declared Lost.
Councillor Nigel Cathcart expressed concern that the words “to have a voice” were not strong enough to ensure that Local Authorities continue to decide applications. The Chair explained that the 30 minutes allowed for motions had expired and so the motion would now be put to the vote, which were cast as follows:
In favour (25):
Councillors Henry Batchelor, John Batchelor, Paul Bearpark, Shrobona Bhattacharya, Anna Bradnam, Tom Bygott, Dr Martin Cahn, Nigel Cathcart, Graham Cone, Claire Daunton, Peter Fane, Neil Gough, Sally Ann Hart, Geoff Harvey, Dr Tumi Hawkins, Pippa Heylings, Mark Howell, Tony Mason, Brian Milnes, Judith Rippeth, Dr Aidan Van de Weyer, Dr Richard Williams, Heather Williams, John Williams and Nick Wright
Against (0):
Abstain (0):
Council Agreed the following motion:
The recent consultation by the Government on “Changes to the planning system” received over 2,300 responses, including responses from the cross-party Local Government Association and our own Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service.
The proposed reforms mean that in future local voice in planning will happen at the Local Plan making stage. The responses expressed strong concerns that this means that communities will not be able to influence individual applications in the same way as they do now which could further alienate communities.
Section 106 agreements are the primary route through which council housing is currently delivered. The proposed new Infrastructure Levy lacks detail as to how it will maintain existing levels of funding for affordable housing especially if threshold is raised to 40/50 for onsite requirement. It would also bypass Parish Councils and communities.
Last month the House of Commons with cross party support from MPs called on the Government to protect residents’ rights to object to individual planning applications in their own neighbourhood area if the area is zoned for growth or renewal.
This Council