Agenda item
Notice of Motion - Planning Applications
The following Motion has been received in the names of Councillors Duncan Enright and Ted Fenton, namely:-
“This Council believes planning works best when developers and the local community work together to shape local areas and deliver necessary new homes; and therefore calls on the Government to protect the right of communities to shape individual planning applications”.
Minutes:
The following Motion was received in the names of Councillors Enright and Fenton, namely:-
“This Council believes planning works best when developers and the local community work together to shape local areas and deliver necessary new homes; and therefore calls on the Government to protect the right of communities to shape individual planning applications.”
Councillor Enright introduced the motion and advised that he felt the Government should protect the rights of communities to shape individual planning applications. He reminded Members that the Council was Member of the Local Government Association (LGA) with many other groups, often with differing views. However, all groups were aligned on the issue regarding Government planning reforms; the LGA believed the measures would take away local determination and they believed in the right for local communities to have a say in the way their area was developed. He advised that the Oxfordshire Plan 2050 was coming forward for people to comment on and was an example of joint working and the faith in strategic planning. He reiterated his belief that local communities should have a say on local developments.
Councillor Fenton seconded the proposal.
Councillor Acock stated that he supported the motion but suggested that it would have been nice for the Labour group to outline the actions required. He requested that in future, all motions should include actions.
Councillor Levy proposed an amendment to the motion stating that it gave undue relevance to the role of developers in the planning process. The wording of the amendment was designed to show that locals should take the lead on local planning and affordable housing, making West Oxfordshire more attractive to outsiders. He concluded that he would prefer his wording to that proposed in the substantive motion.
Councillor Graham seconded the amendment stating that it was a dangerous issue as the planning authority could be lost from the process and residents would speak directly to Secretary of State if the Local Plan was lost.
Councillor Davies did not see the point of the amendment, suggested it was rewording for the sake of it and it needed to be a balance of what both developers and residents wanted.
Councillor Leffman reiterated Councillor Davies’ comments stating that the Council were making a statement to show Government they did not agree with this and that local people wanted to have a say in their communities. She felt that the Council must say this to Government and not allow them to remove more local authority power to Central Government.
Councillor Coul stated that she believed good development was achieved by everyone working together; developers, residents, and the local authority. The amendment would do a disservice to that collaboration.
Councillor Graham stated that the amendment was there to make an important point about infrastructure. This should include infrastructure as part of the whole package and was not happening as part of current planning. The proposed change may seem small but he felt it was vitally important. The Planning Bill would massively affect what happened locally if Council got this wrong.
Councillor Enright, in summing up and closing the debate on the amendment, stated he did not accept the amendment and felt it said the same thing in different words. He agreed that everyone needed to work together to get the best outcome.
The amended motion was put to the vote and was defeated.
Councillor Haine suggested the substantive motion was premature and advised that there would be another White Paper release in the Autumn. He felt that Council should wait for the paper to be released for consultation.
Councillor Cooper stated that the protection of the planning system was worthy of the Council’s time. He was proud that the planning committee did not have block votes and allowed different groups to work together. He agreed that it was important for local communities to have their say.
Councillor Coul agreed with the ethos of the motion but suggested that the timing was in question. Council had already stated that the original white paper was not acceptable and that paper was withdrawn. She stated that Council should wait for the new paper then there may not be an issue or if there was then a response could be addressed at that time.
Councillor Fenton stated that it was a difficult job to look at all the planning applications. The overall workload and long list of applications that were dealt with by officers showed how important planning was to the authority. He was delighted that Government withdrew the original White Paper which would have removed one of the purposes of District Councils. Progress was inevitable but local people should be allowed to have input in that. He also felt it might be premature but it had cross party support as it currently stood, before the next White Paper came forward. He hoped that when this happened it would leave the Council with some measure of control.
Councillor Enright, in summing up, thanked Councillor Fenton for his support stating that he had addressed the timing and was satisfied the time was right.
The motion was put to the vote and was carried.
Carried