Agenda item

Planning and Parish Councils

The Chairman advised that the following Motion had been submitted and was consequently moved by Cllr R Stuchbury and seconded by Cllr R Raja:

“We propose that the Council should undertake a consultation with town and parish councils, in order to evaluate the effectiveness of their engagement with the planning department, following changes to the planning consultation process in the Buckinghamshire Council constitution. The outcomes of this consultation and evaluation exercise and any recommendations resulting from it, should be presented to Council, prior to the May 2021 elections.”

Cllr Stuchbury presented the motion and spoke of his concern that town and parish councils were unable to call applications in to planning committees under the Council’s Constitution, something they had previously been able to do in North Bucks.  Cllr Stuchbury explained town and parish councils were very well informed and had been frustrated at not being able to exercise a call-in. Cllr Raja added to this saying that it was important for local people to have an element of control over how things were done locally.

Two amendments to this motion were received and were considered in turn.

The first amendment to this motion was proposed by Cllr W Whyte and seconded by Cllr M Winn, this amendment was as follows:

“We propose that the Council should undertake a regular consultation with town and parish councils, in order to evaluate their satisfaction effectiveness of their engagement with the planning service department, following changes to the planning consultation process in the Buckinghamshire Council constitution. The outcomes of this consultation and evaluation exercise and any recommendations resulting from it, should be used as part of the current review of the service and subsequently in developing more effective engagement strategies with key stakeholders. presented to Council, prior to the May 2021 elections. Should any conclusions suggest constitutional changes, these to be included as input to a wider review of the Buckinghamshire Council Constitution to be undertaken later in 2020/21.”

 

The debate on this amendment ensued.

 

Cllr Whyte explained that town and parish councils continued to be an important part of the planning process and were already engaging well providing their views on the new planning service. Engagement with parish and town councils would continue, including taking into account their opinions to help shape the planning service moving forward. Cllr Whyte clarified that there was no legal ability to devolve planning powers to towns and parishes. The amendment to the motion reinforced engagement with towns and parishes and focused not only on constitutional matters, but also on shaping the Council’s planning service.

 

In seconding the amendment, Cllr M Winn said that the motion gave the chance for town and parish councils to influence the design of the planning service and reaffirmed the Council’s commitment to consult with towns and parishes on not only planning applications, but a range of planning matters.

 

Cllr R Newcombe spoke in favour of the amendment and highlighted the importance of consultation with towns and parishes as well as the previous decision of the Shadow Authority to review the Constitution by 1 April 2021, which would include planning committee procedures.

 

This amendment passed and became the substantive motion.

A further amendment to the motion was proposed by Cllr L Monger and seconded by Cllr P Jones. As the first amendment passed, this amendment was updated to that which was attached to the supplementary agenda pack. The proposed amendment read as follows:

             Council notes that;

·                               there is significant disquiet among Town and Parish Councils regarding their relationship with the planning department

·                               the four legacy district councils each had different systems for the involvement of town and parish councils in the planning process

·                               the harmonisation of the system for call-in to committee has negatively affected town and parish councils in Aylesbury Vale where they previously had a direct right to request call-in. This has led to many councils feeling that they are being cut out of the process and that their planning knowledge and experience is being devalued

·                               the new process for call-in is unnecessarily cumbersome in its application and still leaves the decision with officers and the committee chairman

·                               Council further notes that there remains a backlog of applications awaiting determination and yet planning meetings are being cancelled for lack of applications to consider.

 

Council therefore proposes that

“In order to give confidence to our town and parish council partners that these matters will be addressed the Cabinet Member for Planning and Enforcement should

We propose that the Council should undertake a regular a consultation with town and parish councils, in order to evaluate their satisfaction with the effectiveness with of the planning service and seek their views on the revised system for call-in. The outcomes of this consultation, should be used as part of the current review of the service and subsequently in developing more effective engagement strategies with key stakeholders. Should any conclusions suggest constitutional changes, these to be included as input to a wider review of the Buckinghamshire Council Constitution to be undertaken later in 2020/21, and evaluation exercise and any recommendations resulting from it, should be presented to Council, prior to the May 2021 election no later than the meeting of Council scheduled for 24^th February 2021.”

The debate on the proposed amendment ensued.

Cllr L Monger presented the amendment advising that it not only created a requirement to consult with town and parish councils, but also gave a specific date to report back to Council the results of that consultation. Cllr Monger raised concern that the 2020/21 date in the substantive motion was open ended and unclear as to when exactly it would take place.

Cllr R Newcombe spoke against the amendment, advising that in his view it dealt solely with the call-in issues and did not take in to account the comprehensive review of the Council’s Constitution agreed by the Shadow Authority.

Cllr W Whyte added that whilst he understood the reasons for the amendment he found it limiting and felt that it would reduce the scope of consultation with towns and parishes included in the substantive motion. Cllr Whyte acknowledged that there was a lot to be gained from the consultation about both the call-in process and design of the planning service in the short and long term.

At the conclusion of the debate, the amendment to the motion was put to the vote and was lost.

Debate then ensued on the substantive motion as set out below:

“We propose that the Council should undertake regular consultation with town and parish councils, in order to evaluate their satisfaction with the planning service. The outcomes of this consultation should be used as part of the current review of the service and subsequently in developing more effective engagement strategies with key stakeholders. Should any conclusions suggest constitutional changes, these to be included as input to a wider review of the Buckinghamshire Council Constitution to be undertaken later in 2020/21.”

 

Cllr A Huxley spoke in support of the motion stating that town and parish councils must be consulted on planning applications. Cllr Huxley recognised the great deal of work towns and parish councils undertook in planning, with most holding regular planning committees and being very attentive to details within applications.

Cllr Whyte thanked all members for their contributions in the debate and agreed that town and parish councils should be able to have their say. Cllr Stuchbury echoed the principle of supporting town and parish councils.

Resolved: That the substantive motion be carried.

 

Planning White Paper

The Chairman advised that the following Motion had been submitted and was consequently moved by Cllr R Stuchbury and seconded by Cllr M Hussain:

“We the undersigned propose that Buckinghamshire Council makes its objections to the Government White Paper known in the strongest terms and the most determined way possible.

Buckinghamshire Council for the first time will be in a position to do joined-up thinking, linking all areas of planning together on behalf of our constituents presently and in the future.

The new Government proposals, Planning for the Future, have no respect for the democratic processes of a local planning authority and will make drafting probably the first ever Buckinghamshire Development Plan in the future both unwieldy and unsustainable.

On ecological, environmental, social and economic grounds therefore we seek Buckinghamshire Council to give strong objection to the proposals within the White Paper published on the 6th of August 2020.

Our grounds for objection are that it bears no relation to the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act, the 1968 Town and Country Planning Act or the 1990 Amendment to the Town and Country Planning Act which was amended in 1991, putting local plans as the ultimate way local authorities would be delivering development plans, while encouraging parishes and communities to write local plans in a joined-up, workable, fully accountable and democratic planning system.

The Planning for the Future White Paper is not an evolution, it’s a devolution of powers from Buckinghamshire Council to Central Government and should be contested at every possible avenue open to Buckinghamshire Council

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/planning-for-the-future “

 

Cllr R Stuchbury introduced the motion and spoke of his concern that the principles within the Planning White Paper challenged the sovereignty of Buckinghamshire. Cllr Stuchbury explained that he believed decisions about Buckinghamshire’s future should be made locally and not by central government.

In seconding the proposal, Cllr Majid Hussain added that the environment of Buckinghamshire should be protected and developments should not be imposed upon it. Cllr Hussain spoke of HS2 having been a lesson on the negative impact of developments imposed upon Buckinghamshire and its residents by central government. 

An amendment to this motion was proposed by Cllr M Tett and seconded by Cllr W Whyte, this amendment was as follows.

“We the undersigned propose that Buckinghamshire Council will be responding makes its objections to the Government’s White Paper – Planning for the Future published on the 6th of August 2020by its endorsement of the strong, logical and well-reasoned response agreed by its Cabinet on 13th October 2020.known in the strongest terms and the most determined way possible.

 

Buckinghamshire Council for the first time will be in a position to do joined-up thinking, linking all areas of planning together on behalf of our constituents presently and in the future.

 

The new Government proposals, Planning for the Future, have no respect little regard for the democratic processes of a local planning authority and will make drafting probably the first ever Buckinghamshire Local Development Plan in the future both unwieldy and unsustainable..

 

On ecological, environmental, social and economic grounds therefore we seek Buckinghamshire Council therefore urges the Government to give serious consideration to give our strong objection to the proposals within the White Paper published on the 6th of August 2020.

 

Our grounds for objection are that it bears no relation to the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act, the 1968 Town and Country Planning Act or the 1990 Amendment to the Town and Country Planning Act which was amended in 1991, putting local plans as the ultimate way local authorities would be delivering development plans, while encouraging parishes and communities to write local plans in a joined-up, workable, fully accountable and democratic planning system.

 

The Planning for the Future White Paper not an evolution, it’s a devolution of powers from Buckinghamshire Council to Central Government and should be contested at every possible avenue open to Buckinghamshire Council

Council also requests that the Cabinet Member make the Council’s final, official response known to the Buckinghamshire Members of Parliament and that he ask for their support in lobbying Government to change or substantially modify its proposals in the White Paper.

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/planning-for-the-future”

 

Cllr M Tett explained the rationale behind the amendment and noted that the proposed motion had been outdated and had not taken into account the draft response agreed by Cabinet at its meeting on 13 October.  Cllr Tett described this as a thorough and comprehensive response to what was the most fundamental change proposed to planning legislation since the introduction of the Town and Country Planning Act in 1947. Cllr Tett raised concern about the long term impact this paper could have on Buckinghamshire if it was to be adopted, potentially fundamentally changing Buckinghamshire as a place. Cllr Tett identified some commendable areas within the paper, namely the desire to build beautiful places and an increased use of new technology. However, Cllr Tett explained that the paper ignored how complex local plans were, reduced democratic accountability and inflated housing targets could be imposed on local authorities without regard to Green Belt, AONB or the protection of countryside. The proposed move from Community Infrastructure Levy and Section 106 developer contributions to funding based on a viability assessment could also be manipulated by developers. Local authorities forward funding infrastructure was also recognised as a significant risk.

Cllr Whyte in seconding the amendment affirmed the comments made by Cllr Tett and noted that town and parish councils had already provided some positive feedback to the Council’s draft response. 

Cllr Newcombe spoke in support of the amendment and noted that it was important to understand that there were some good aspects to the paper such as the increased support for enforcing unauthorised developments, however there were major parts which were considered unacceptable.

Cllr Raja stated that there were crucial areas in the white paper that did not deliver and would result in local democracy being lost.

Cllr Monger queried why such a significant change was not worthy of debate of a full council meeting and believed there would be little opportunity for town and parish councils to be involved in the response.

Cllr Stuchbury recognised the work Cabinet had done on producing a response although felt that the amendment to the motion should have included the word ‘object’.

The amendment to the motion was carried and became the substantive motion as below.

“Buckinghamshire Council will be responding to Planning for the Future published on the 6th of August 2020by its endorsement of the strong, logical and well-reasoned response agreed by its Cabinet on 13th October 2020.

 

Council also requests that the Cabinet Member make the Council’s final, official response known to the Buckinghamshire Members of Parliament and that he ask for their support in lobbying Government to change or substantially modify its proposals in the White Paper.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/planning-for-the-future”

 

The debate on the substantive motion ensued.

Cllr P Jones spoke positively of the Cabinet response, including the fact that the response highlighted the missed opportunity to put sustainability and climate change at the forefront of the paper. Cllr Jones added caution that he had little confidence that the Government would give any weight to the Council’s consultation response.

Cllr Tett explained the draft response produced by Cabinet was being shared with town and parish councils to comment on and members were also able to comment on this. Cllr Tett described it as a constructive response that balanced out the areas the Council supported with the significant areas the Council did not agree with.

Cllr Stuchbury was grateful for the opportunity being given to town and parish councils to comment on the draft response and spoke of the importance of the Council having a unified voice on the matter and his hope that local MPs understand the concerns.

Resolved: That the substantive motion be carried.