This Council considers the Government's White Paper on Planning Reform to be counterproductive to good placemaking and anti-democratic.

This Council notes that whilst the wording claims the new proposals will improve delivery of affordable housing and environmental benefits, we believe the impact of the proposals will have a negative affect. 

Instead, this Council calls on the Government to give more powers to Local Authorities to set rigorous standards and have the powers to actively enforce them. 

We call for the following powers to be given to Local Authorities:

1) Abolish the methods used by Developers to Landbank land by giving Local Authorities the ability to rescind Planning Permissions where development has stalled without adequate grounds

2) Abolish VAT on the restoration and conversion of buildings.

3) Remove Government Targets for housing delivery  and allow Local Authorities to deliver Local Plans and Housing Targets based on identified local need without the requirement of a Government Inspector Approval.

This Council calls on the Government to reconsider its current White Paper.

Proposed Mike Baldock

Seconded Richard Palmer

Councillor Mike Baldock explained that he had received an amendment to the motion from Councillors Alan Horton and Mike Whiting, for which he thanked them, and in accordance with procedure rule 17.5, he accepted the alteration to the original motion.  The Monitoring Officer sought the consent of all Members in agreeing to alter the motion. There was no dissent.

Councillor Baldock welcomed the input of the opposition group in putting forward a stronger motion and their shared concern over the Government’s proposals which would increase housing numbers, particularly in Swale.  He proposed the following updated motion which was seconded by Councillor Richard Palmer who reserved his right to speak:

“This Council urges Government to reconsider its proposed Planning White Paper.

This Council notes the Government’s proposals within the White Paper for more affordable housing, green growth and the provision of infrastructure, but believes the methods suggested for achieving these are ill-thought through, may be counterproductive to good placemaking, and certainly appear to undermine local democracy.

This Council believes any new planning system must deliver the necessary infrastructure (medical services, education provision, transport connectivity and local services) before new homes are built.

This Council believes that borrowing by local authorities to pay for that infrastructure, as proposed, is the wrong approach and unsustainable.

This Council would like to see VAT abolished on the restoration and conversion of buildings, as a way of encouraging the use of smaller brownfield sites.

We call for Local Planning Authorities to be given the ability to rescind planning permissions where development has stalled.

Finally, this Council rejects the proposed changes to the methodology for setting housing numbers which it believes produces unrealistic, unsustainable and ultimately undeliverable targets.”

In the debate that followed Members made comments which included:

·       The Government were mistaken that the country’s lack of housing was a result of the planning system;

·       there was an imbalance of housing across London and the South East compared to the rest of the country;

·       the Government’s white paper threatened local democracy, encouraged poorly designed housing and gave the opportunity for developers to ‘cherry pick’ sites in their interest;

·       locally elected representatives should determine planning applications;

·       infrastructure should come first;

·       developers should not be able to land bank;

·       some elements of the planning system were in need of reform;

·       concerns over ‘growth zones’ and new proposals for Permitted Development Rights;

·       unhappy with how a proposed amendment to the original motion had been handled as an alteration;

·       the original motion was inadequate;

·       encouraged the Leader to send a strongly-worded letter to Government setting out Swale Borough Council’s (SBC) views;

·       highlighted the negative effect the white paper would have on affordable housing;

·       drew attention to development with planning permission not yet implemented;

·       concern over increase in proposed housing numbers;

·       praise for the altered motion;

·       critical of original motion;

·       needed a common-sense approach to planning;

·       praise for cross-party support; and

·       housing delivery should be based on local need.

Councillor Richard Palmer in seconding the motion praised the cross-party support and drew attention to the criticism of the white paper from across different industries and organisations.

Councillor Mike Baldock thanked the opposition for their input, and said that under the Constitution, the alteration was being administered in the correct way, but he apologised if the opposition had not been kept informed of this. He said he was happy to acknowledge their contribution and to work together in a constructive and positive manner.

The Monitoring Officer explained that considering the amendment as an alteration to the original motion assisted in the running of the virtual meeting and that excluding the prospective proposer and seconder of the amended motion was neither his nor Councillor Baldock’s intention.  The prospective proposer and seconder of the amendment accepted the apologies.

The altered motion was then put to the vote, and was agreed:

Resolved:

(1)  That the Council urges Government to reconsider its proposed Planning White Paper.

(2)  That the Council notes the Government’s proposals within the White Paper for more affordable housing, green growth and the provision of infrastructure, but believes the methods suggested for achieving these are ill-thought through, may be counterproductive to good placemaking, and certainly appear to undermine local democracy.

(3)  That the Council believes any new planning system must deliver the necessary infrastructure (medical services, education provision, transport connectivity and local services) before new homes are built.

(4)  That the Council believes that borrowing by local authorities to pay for that infrastructure, as proposed, is the wrong approach and unsustainable.

(5)  That the Council would like to see VAT abolished on the restoration and conversion of buildings, as a way of encouraging the use of smaller brownfield sites.

(6)  That the Council call for Local Planning Authorities to be given the ability to rescind planning permissions where development has stalled.

(7)  That the Council rejects the proposed changes to the methodology for setting housing numbers which it believes produces unrealistic, unsustainable and ultimately undeliverable targets.