Agenda and minutes

Venue: Online only

Contact: Kirsty Hunt  01344 353108

Link: This meeting will be held online

Media

Items
Note No. Item

None

61.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 149 KB

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Commission held on 6 January 2021.

Minutes:

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of the Commission held on 6 January 2021 be approved as a correct record, and signed by the Chairman.

None

62.

Declarations of Interest and Party Whip

Members are asked to declare any disclosable pecuniary or affected interests and the nature of that interest, including the existence and nature of the party whip, in respect of any matter to be considered at this meeting.

 

Any Member with a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in a matter should withdraw from the meeting when the matter is under consideration and should notify the Democratic Services Officer in attendance that they are withdrawing as they have such an interest. If the Disclosable Pecuniary Interest is not entered on the register of Members interests the Monitoring Officer must be notified of the interest within 28 days.

 

Any Member with an Affected Interest in a matter must disclose the interest to the meeting.  There is no requirement to withdraw from the meeting when the interest is only an affected interest, but the Monitoring Officer should be notified of the interest, if not previously notified of it, within 28 days of the meeting.

Minutes:

There were no declarations made and no indications that members would be participating while under the party whip.

None

63.

Urgent Items of Business

Any other items which, pursuant to Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972, the Chairman decides are urgent.

Minutes:

There were no items of urgent business.

64.

Public Participation

To receive submissions from members of the public which have been submitted in advance in accordance with the Council’s Public Participation Scheme for Overview and Scrutiny.

Minutes:

No submissions had been made by members of the public under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme for Overview and Scrutiny.

65.

Scrutiny of Planning practices pdf icon PDF 1 MB

The Commission has invited guests to address the meeting before considering the following question:

 

“Are our current planning practices robust enough to protect Bracknell Forest from developers manipulating viability study process?”

 

and deciding whether to make any recommendations to the Executive.

 

·       Andrew Hunter, Director: Place, Planning and Regeneration to speak to the Council’s current planning practices followed by questions (25 minutes)

·       Andrew Jones from BPS Chartered Surveyors to answer questions relating to viability assessments (15 minutes)

·       Jim Bailey, representative from Pegasus Planning to provide a developer’s perspective (15 minutes)

·       Councillor Turrell, Executive Member for Planning and Transport to answer questions on his portfolio in relation to planning practices (15 minutes)

·       Conclusions and recommendations

 

Evidence Pack to support this item

 

Please note the Evidence Pack should be read in advance of the meeting but for those short of time the essential reading is the Development Viability presentation.

 

·       BPS Chartered Surveyors presentation on Development Viability: what is Involved and what has changed

·       National position on Plan viability and planning application decision makingViability - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

·       Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (bracknell-forest.gov.uk) – this includes the Affordable housing policy and viability matters

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Commission invited guests to address the meeting before considering the following question: “Are our current planning practices robust enough to protect Bracknell Forest from developers manipulating viability study process?”

 

Andrew Hunter, Director: Place, Planning and Regeneration addressed the Commission on the Council’s current planning practices. Andrew Jones from BPS Chartered Surveyors explained the viability assessment process. Jim Bailey, representative from Pegasus Planning provided the Commission with a developer’s perspective. Councillor Turrell, Executive Member for Planning and Transport summed up what he had heard about members’ concerns about planning practices.

 

In response to questions the following points were made:

·       The package of planning policies would be updated following the adoption of the new Local Plan these would be published in advance of Executive in March and as such were not yet available to the Commission.

·       Planning decisions which moved away from the Council’s approved policy framework would be considered by the planning committee.

·       A viability assessment was being developed for the new local plan covered overall plan strategy.

·       Delivering all policy requirements on specific applications, was the aim but viability assessments were available for use where developers could identify genuine viability issues which should be considered as part of the planning approval process.  Larger allocated sites would be covered by the local plan viability assessment.

·       There was a delicate balance between being robust but pragmatic in order to attract housebuilders and work with them to deliver local housing and meet needs.

·       Viability studies had been published for applications during the previous few years.

·       Technical information to quantify how much potential affordable housing had been lost through the viability study process, would be provided to the Commission.

·       Reported that registered providers were becoming more proactive in the local housing market to build more affordable homes on the sites by using government grants. 

·       In response to the suggestion that affordable housing levels could be set per site rather than across the whole Local Plan it was explained that this would be very complex and was not considered achievable and would require multiple viability assessments.

·       Some developments were delivered in phases and when affordable housing was built during the construction timeframe depended on the site size and would be controlled through a S.106 agreement. 

·       Planning permission was granted on the information available at the determination date and therefore there would not be a reassessment process unless the developer did not undertake the construction before the permission lapsed had reapplication was required. Section 106 agreements could also see reassessment if a long period of time lapsed between decision and implementation.

·       Noted that the issue of affordable housing was high on the political agenda.

·       The Commission were welcome to make a submission to the consultation but at this stage in the process responses would go directly to the examiner.

·       Advised that some policies were nationally set but local authorities could produce guidance on how the policy was interpreted locally.

·       Following the implementation of the new Local Plan it was anticipated there would be fewer  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

66.

Education, Skills and Growth Panel Review Report: Apprentices pdf icon PDF 132 KB

To consider the draft Apprentices review report prepared by the Education, Skills and Growth Overview and Scrutiny Panel for submission to the Executive on 16 March 2021.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillor Mrs Birch, Chair of the Education, Skills and Growth Overview and Scrutiny Panel presented the Commission with the findings and proposed recommendations within the Apprentices review report.

 

The Commission endorsed the recommendations within the Apprentices review report for submission to the Executive on 16 March 2021.

None

67.

Work Programme Update pdf icon PDF 227 KB

Overview and Scrutiny Panel Chairs to provide a verbal progress updates on the work programme.

 

The Commission to consider any proposed changes to the Overview and Scrutiny work programme such as scope, scheduling or duration and its potential impact on the delivery of the overall programme.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Statutory Scrutiny Officer highlighted to the meeting that the work programme had successfully been brought back on track so when commissioning future reviews or considering amendments to active reviews the Commission would need to consider the implications for the programme as a whole. Each Panel Chair provided a verbal update on work programme progress.

 

Environment and Communities

The Registered Social Landlords review was in the process of being concluded and the review report would be brought to the next Commission meeting.

 

The scope for the Food Waste review was proposed to the meeting and was focusing on how food waste could be implemented for flats and houses of multiple occupancy (HMOs).

 

Wellbeing and Finance

The Isolation and Loneliness review was progressing, would be concluded shortly and the review report would be brought to the next Commission meeting.

 

The Chair proposed that the Panel’s next review should be on Blue Badges to investigate whether the process was fair for non-visible disabilities. The scope for the Blue Badge review was proposed to the meeting. The Chair requested that he was provided scrutiny support earlier than was currently proposed. 

 

Education, Skills and Growth

The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) review was being developed and the scope would be shared with the Commission when available. Planning officers were focusing on the Local Plan process and therefore the witness programme was being revised to delay their participation until they had more capacity. The review would initially focus on the CIL process with parish and town councils. 

 

The deadline for the implementation of the recommendations agreed by the Executive from the Careleavers review are due to be implemented by February 2021.  Progress would be followed up and reported back to the Commission.

 

Overview and Scutiny Commission

The cross-party advisory panel for Climate Change would be set up with and the Commission proposed eight representatives.

 

The Commission agreed that:

 

i)               the proposed scope for the Food Waste review be approved and the review commissioned;

 

ii)             the proposed scope for the Blue Badge review be approved and the review commissioned;

 

iii)            progress of the implementation of the Careleavers review recommendations would be checked and reported back to the Commission;

 

iv)            further discussions on scheduling and support capacity would be held offline with the Statutory Scrutiny Officer; and

 

v)             the proposed representatives for the Climate Change Advisory Panel were Councillors Ingham, Mrs McKenzie, Mrs McKenzie-Boyle, Mossom, Parker, Temperton, Tullet and Virgo.

 

Contact Information

Democratic services

Email: committee@bracknell-forest.gov.uk