In accordance with Council Procedure Rule No 10 to consider Motions on notice from Members. Motions must be received in writing or by email to the Monitoring Officer by 12 noon twelve clear working days before the meeting.
(a) Motion submitted by Councillor D Hancock
“Council notes the concerns raised by numerous ward members, residents and the Planning Committee questioning the content of responses submitted by the Highways Authority.
Council believesthat, as a responsible planning authority, it has a duty to everyone to ensure that development is sustainable and that all planning decisions should be robustly determined; and that it should have full confidence in the information it is provided with as part of that process.
Council resolves to raise the significant concerns, with Derbyshire County Council Highways, of elected members and the public regarding the accuracy of their responses to consultations and, what would appear to be, numerous failings to include the cumulative impact of other proposed development (as required in the National Planning Policy Framework)”.
(b) Motion submitted by Councillor R Shipman
“Council notes the extent of new development in North East Derbyshire, both speculative and in line with the draft Local Plan.
Council believes that all planning decisions should be robustly enforced.
Council resolves to increase the capacity of the planning enforcement team”.
(c) Motion submitted by Councillor N Barker
The Labour Group has concern that on the 6 August 2020, the Government published a White Paper entitled ‘Planning for the Future’ with the aim of ‘slashing red tape and accelerating house building’.
With this in mind with regards to responding to the consultation we request that the Council resolves to:-
Respond to the consultation highlighting the Councils concerns that
· The proposals will give central Government the powers to set arbitrary housing delivery numbers for each authority.
· They will remove the opportunity for communities to comment on individual planning applications.
· They could lead to unregulated development and as such could be a precursor to what some have termed a ‘slum charter’.
· The removal of Section 106 and CIL’s could lead to less affordable houses being built and the prospect of embedding regional inequalities.
(d) Motion submitted by Councillor P Windley
Council notes the recent proposed changes in the government’s white paper Planning for the Future. These include handing powers away from Development Management Committees and to government run development corporations and a further expansion of permitted development rights, including the right for developers to build upwards without planning permission.
Council believes that the government’s current National Planning Policy Framework seriously constrains council’s powers to insist that developers provide affordable housing or infrastructure such as schools, GP surgeries or improved public transport in new development.
Council resolves for the Leader of the Council to write to the Secretary of State for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to reform planning rules to give local councils more power to:-
· Insist on improved infrastructure with new developments;
· Challenge viability assessments that allow developers to get away without providing adequate affordable housing for local young people;
· Scrap permitted development rights that lead to substandard homes being built.
Minutes:
In accordance with Council Procedure Rule No 10 to consider motions on notice from members. Motions must be received in writing or by email to the Monitoring Officer by 12 noon twelve clear working days before the meeting.
(a) Motion proposed by Councillor D Hancock
“Council notes the concerns raised by numerous ward members, residents and the Planning Committee questioning the content of responses submitted by the Highways Authority.
Council believes that, as a responsible planning authority, it has a duty to everyone to ensure that development is sustainable and that all planning decisions should be robustly determined; and that it should have full confidence in the information it is provided with as part of our process.
Council resolves to raise the significant concerns, with Derbyshire County Council Highways, of elected members and the public regarding the accuracy of their responses to consultations and, what would appear to be, numerous failings to include the cumulative impact of other proposed development (as required in the National Planning Policy Framework)”.
In presenting his Motion Councillor D Hancock stated that this was an issue experienced with many planning applications. The responses received from Derbyshire County Council Highways Authority, as a statutory consultee, were often non-committal and lacked accurate data.
Councillor R Shipman seconded the Motion and stated that the reports received were not what was required for a planning committee to properly consider the applications.
Councillor N Barker proposed an amendment to the Motion as follows:-
AMENDMENT
“Council notes the concerns raised by numerous ward members, residents and the Planning Committee questioning the content of responses submitted by the Highways Authority.
Council believes that, as a responsible planning authority, it has a duty to everyone to ensure that development is sustainable and that all planning decisions should be robustly determined; and that it should have full confidence in the information it is provided with as part of our process.
Council resolves to raise the significant concerns, with
Derbyshire County Council Highways, of elected members and the
public regarding the accuracy of their responses to consultations
and, what would appear to be, numerous failings to include the
cumulative impact of other proposed development (as required in the
National Planning Policy Framework) to refer this
to the relevant scrutiny committee for
consideration”.
The amendment was seconded by Councillor J Barry, stating that this needed to be considered by a scrutiny committee so the issue could be moved forward. The south of the County had a large number of upcoming developments and there was a poor infrastructure in relation to highways, which needed to be addressed.
Councillor C Cupit stated that she understood the concerns that had been raised but that this Motion was not the correct way to deal with those concerns. In order for Highways to object to a proposal the impact had to be demonstrably severe, which was difficult to illustrate, and it was still important that Ward Councillors raised particular issues and provided local knowledge. She suggested that Councillors could continue to raise individual cases with Highways and that planning officers were working with Highways to invite them to a meeting of Planning Committee to discuss this and other matters.
Councillor A Dale stated that he shared some of the sentiments behind the Motion but as Councillor C Cupit had highlighted there were protocols and regulations to be followed. He also stated that scrutiny committees had to independent and set their own work programme.
Councillor M Foster reiterated that the scrutiny committees should be deciding their own topics for consideration.
Councillor R Shipman stated that this issue needed to be addressed now and would not support the amendment.
Councillor N Barker stated that the amendment had been intended to find a route for the public to get involved.
Councillor D Hancock stated that he did not support the amendment. He added that Highways had not been adhering to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the issues that this caused had to be highlighted.
Councillor B Wright declared that he was a member of Derbyshire County Council and the County Council’s Planning Committee. He remained in the meeting and voted on the Motion.
The Amendment was DEFEATED.
The Motion, as moved, was then voted on and was also DEFEATED.
(b) Motion proposed by Councillor R Shipman
“Council notes the extent of new development in North East Derbyshire, both speculative and in line with the draft Local Plan.
Council believes that all planning decisions should be robustly enforced.
Council resolves to increase the capacity of the planning enforcement team”.
In presenting his Motion Councillor R Shipman stated that this was put forward to increase the Council’s capacity with regard to enforcement.
Councillor D Hancock seconded to Motion and stated that the Council covered a large area geographically and with a lot of building projects the capacity of planning enforcement needed to be increased.
Councillor C Cupit stated that work was already underway in regard to this, including developing an enforcement plan and to review and invest in the structure of the planning and enforcement team. The enforcement plan would set out what was expected of the enforcement system and would set out clear targets for responses and the monitoring of enforcement cases.
Councillor R Shipman stated that as work was already underway to address this matter he would withdraw the Motion. Councillor D Hancock, who seconded the Motion, confirmed that he was in agreement to withdraw the Motion.
The Motion was WITHDRAWN.
(c) Motion submitted by Councillor N Barker
“The Labour Group has concern that on 6 August 2020, the Government published a White Paper entitled ‘Planning for the Future’ with the aim of ‘slashing red tape and accelerating house building’. With this in mind with regards to responding to the consultation we request that the Council resolves to:-
Respond to the consultation highlighting the Council’s concerns that:-
· The proposals will give Central Government the powers to set arbitrary housing delivery numbers for each authority;
· They will remove the opportunity for communities to comment on individual planning applications;
· They could leave to unregulated development and as such could be a precursor to what some have termed a ‘slum charter’;
· The removal of Section 106 and CIL’s could lead to less affordable housing being built and the prospect of embedding regional inequalities.
In presenting his Motion Councillor N Barker stated that the planning system was far from perfect but he had concerns about the implications of the White Paper. He stated that one of the main issues was losing the ability to question things at a planning committee and the introduction of growth areas, which once designated as such would have statutory outline planning permission. This would remove the ability for local communities to comment on planning proposals.
Councillor P Windley seconded the Motion and stated that this White Paper stripped local authorities of any legitimate control over development in their area. She believed these proposals were based solely to address London’s needs.
Councillor J Barry hoped that the Leader of the Council would agree that the decisions regarding development within the District should remain the responsibility of local people and their representatives and asked if he would go against the White Paper to keep planning matters local.
Councillor A Dale responded that he believed local people should be involved in planning decisions. He stated that whilst he had some concerns about elements of the White Paper there were other aspects which were positive.
Councillor C Cupit welcomed discussion on the White Paper but noted that many of the concerns that had been raised were not contained with the White Paper and that it was clearly stated that it was intended to cut red tape not standards. She welcomed some aspects of the proposals, such as the chance to put forward a locally based infrastructure levy and placing a greater emphasis on communities and residents having more input. Councillor C Cupit concluded that it was a consultation on headline ideas.
Councillor R Shipman stated that whilst there was some good elements to the White Paper these were eroded by giving away any local decision making power. He stated that he thought it would create more inappropriate developments.
Councillor S Pickering stated that it was a centralisation of the planning system and it was to the advantage of property developers at the expense of local people.
Councillor N Barker stated that he had read the White Paper and he felt it lacked detail. He added that if there had been local plan steering groups this could have been discussed in that forum.
The Motion was DEFEATED.
(d) Motion submitted by Councillor P Windley
“Council notes the recent proposed changes in the Government’s White Paper Planning for the Future. These include handing powers away from Development Management Committees and to government run development corporations and a further expansion of permitted development rights, including the right for developers to build upwards without planning permission.
Council believes that the Government’s current National Planning Policy Framework seriously constrains council’s powers to insist that developers provide affordable housing or infrastructure such as schools, GP surgeries or improved public transport in new development.
Council resolves for the Leader of the Council to write to the Secretary of State for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to reform planning rules to give local Councils more power to:-
· Insist on improved infrastructure with new developments;
· Challenge viability assessments that allow developers to get away without providing adequate affordable housing for local young people;
· Scrap permitted development rights that lead to substandard homes being built”.
Councillor P Windley reported that she wished to withdraw the Motion.
The Motion was WITHDRAWN.