Agenda item

Motion: White Paper, ‘Planning for the Future’

In accordance with Procedure Rule 8(A)(5), the Council will debate a motion which has been submitted by Members of the Council.

This alternates, from meeting to meeting, between a motion submitted on behalf of the Administration and a motion submitted on behalf of Opposition Members of the Council.

The following Motion has been received from the Administration (the Liberal Democrat Group):

Proposed by Councillor Rebekah Moll

Seconded by Councillor Caroline Kerr

“White Paper, ‘Planning for the Future’

 

This Council notes:

      i.        The Royal Institute for British Architects called the proposals in the White Paper ‘shameful, and which will do almost nothing to guarantee delivery of affordable, well-designed and sustainable homes.  RIBA also said, ‘proposals could lead to the next generation of slum housing.

                

    ii.        The proposals to reform the planning process seek to blame councils and communities for the root cause of issues with the planning system and yet, it’s clear the housing delivery system is broken; not the planning system.

 

a)    90% of planning applications are approved by councils and more than one million homes with planning consent in the past decade are yet to be built according to figures from the LGA; and

b)    Kingston Council has permitted 2753 homes over the past five years which are not yet built.

 

This Council is concerned that the proposals seek to:

      i.        Significantly increase housing targets in Kingston from 964 pa to 1526;

 

    ii.        Provide less affordable housing, taking no account of housing land supply;

 

   iii.        Take away many of the opportunities for communities and their locally elected representatives to have a final say on how their areas develop; .

   iv.        Reduce or remove the right of residents to object to applications near them by giving automatic rights to build in ‘growth’ areas, and increase permitted development rights, risk unregulated growth and unsustainable communities;

 

    v.        Remove Section 106 payments and the Community Infrastructure Levy for infrastructure and replace them with a national levy; it is unclear how the new level of developer contributions would work; and

 

   vi.        Minimise the climate emergency as the reforms do not make it a key priority that would enable the planning system to respond to the climate crisis.

 

Calls on the Government to reform its current rules on development to give local authorities more powers to:

·         Challenge unrealistic targets;

·         Insist on improved infrastructure with new developments;

·         Challenge viability assessments that allow developers to get away without   providing adequate affordable housing for local people;

·         Remove those permitted development rights that lead to substandard homes being built;

·         Require new development to meet high sustainability standards.; and

·         Prevent loss of biodiversity, threatening species of fauna, insects and other wildlife.

 

This Council resolves to:

      i.        Object to the Government’s proposals for arbitrary housing targets and the reduction of local control proposed in the consultation paper;

 

    ii.        Highlight our concerns over these proposals with the public and local residents; and

 

   iii.        Campaign for a planning framework that provides for our residents and our communities and puts people not developers at the heart of any solution.”

 

 

 

 

 

Minutes:

In accordance with Procedure Rule 8(A)(5), the Council debated the following motion which was submitted on behalf of the Administration of the Council (Liberal Democrat Group), as proposed by Councillor Rebekah Moll and seconded by Councillor Caroline Kerr.

 

‘Motion: White Paper, ‘Planning for the Future’

 

This Council notes:

 

      i.        The Royal Institute for British Architects called the proposals in the White Paper ‘shameful, and which will do almost nothing to guarantee delivery of affordable, well-designed and sustainable homes.’  RIBA also said, ‘proposals could lead to the next generation of slum housing.’

    ii.        The proposals to reform the planning process seek to blame councils and communities for the root cause of issues with the planning system and yet, it’s clear the housing delivery system is broken; not the planning system.

a)    90% of planning applications are approved by councils and more than one million homes with planning consent in the past decade are yet to be built according to figures from the LGA; and

b)    Kingston Council has permitted 2753 homes over the past five years which are not yet built.

 

This Council is concerned that the proposals seek to:

 

      i.        Significantly increase housing targets in Kingston from 964 pa to 1526;

    ii.        Provide less affordable housing, taking no account of housing land supply;

   iii.        Take away many of the opportunities for communities and their locally elected representatives to have a final say on how their areas develop; .

   iv.        Reduce or remove the right of residents to object to applications near them by giving automatic rights to build in ‘growth’ areas, and increase permitted development rights, risk unregulated growth and unsustainable communities;

    v.        Remove Section 106 payments and the Community Infrastructure Levy for infrastructure and replace them with a national levy; it is unclear how the new level of developer contributions would work; and

   vi.        Minimise the climate emergency as the reforms do not make it a key priority that would enable the planning system to respond to the climate crisis.

 

Calls on the Government to reform its current rules on development to give local authorities more powers to:

·         Challenge unrealistic targets;

·         Insist on improved infrastructure with new developments;

·         Challenge viability assessments that allow developers to get away without   providing adequate affordable housing for local people;

·         Remove those permitted development rights that lead to substandard homes being built;

·         Require new development to meet high sustainability standards.; and

·         Prevent loss of biodiversity, threatening species of fauna, insects and other wildlife.

 

This Council resolves to:

 

      i.        Object to the Government’s proposals for arbitrary housing targets and the reduction of local control proposed in the consultation paper;

    ii.        Highlight our concerns over these proposals with the public and local residents; and

   iii.        Campaign for a planning framework that provides for our residents and our communities and puts people not developers at the heart of any solution.”

 

Councillor Sharron Falchikov-Sumner proposed an amendment to the motion, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition, Councillor Kevin Davis, that inserted the words “on the Royal Borough of Kingston to use its current powers to the full as well as” after the word “calls” within the original motion. Furthermore a fourth item was added under the section “This Council Resolves to” which read as follows:

 

“iv. Commit to fully discharging its duties to ensure biodiversity net gain in ALL its decisions in line with the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act”.

 

After the debate, and on being put to the vote, the amendment was LOST.

 

Voting:

 

For:                 Councillor Falchikov-Sumner (1).

 

Against:         Councillors Abbas, Abraham, Archer, Bailey, Beynon, Fiona Boult, Olivia Boult, Cobbett, Davey, Dunstone, Durrant, Edwards, Foulder-Hughes, Gander, Goodship, Green, Ha, Heap, Holt, Kerr, Kirsch, Lidbetter, Moll, Schaper, Self, Stuart, Sweeney, Thayalan, Thompson, White, Wookey, and Yoganathan. (32)

 

Abstain:         Councillors Arora, Bass, Cunningham, Davis, Fram, George, Hughes, Netley, Sheppard and Wehring (10).

 

Councillors Ryder-Mills and Young were unable to vote due to technical difficulties.

 

The Leader of the Opposition, Councillor Kevin Davis, proposed an amendment to the original motion, seconded by Councillor David Cunningham, which deleted all content prior to 'this Council resolves to’.

 

After the debate, and on being put to the vote, the amendment was LOST.

 

Voting:

 

For:                 Councillors Arora, Bass, Cunningham, Davis, Fram, George, Hughes, Netley, Sheppard and Falchikov-Sumner (10).

 

Against:         Councillors Abbas, Abraham, Archer, Bailey, Beynon, Fiona Boult, Olivia Boult, Cobbett, Davey, Dunstone, Durrant, Edwards, Foulder-Hughes, Gander, Goodship, Green, Ha, Heap, Holt, Kerr, Kirsch, Lidbetter, Moll, Schaper, Self, Stuart, Sweeney, Thayalan, Thompson, Wehring, White, Wookey, Yoganathan and Young. (34)

 

Abstain:         Councillor Ryder-Mills abstained as he missed part of the debate due to technical difficulties. (1)

 

After debate a vote was taken on the original motion:

 

 

Voting:

 

 

For:                 Councillors Abbas, Abraham, Archer, Bailey, Beynon, Fiona Boult, Olivia Boult, Cobbett, Davey, Dunstone, Durrant, Edwards, Foulder-Hughes, Gander, Goodship, Green, Ha, Heap, Holt, Kerr, Kirsch, Lidbetter, Moll, Schaper, Self, Stuart, Falchikov-Sumner, Sweeney, Thayalan, Thompson, Wehring, White, Wookey, Yoganathan and Young. (35)

 

Against:         None. (0)

 

Abstain:         Councillors Arora, Bass, Cunningham, Davis, Fram, George, Hughes, Netley and Sheppard. (9)

 

Councillor Ryder-Mills was unable to vote due to technical difficulties.

 

Supporting documents: