Report to follow.

 

Eight Public Questions had been received and were put and responded to at the meeting, as follows:

 

Mrs Gearon-Simm:

 

‘Brentwood Borough Council has outsourced the work of its Legal Department to Barking and Dagenham Council.

 

Both the work of the Housing Department and Licensing has been outsourced to Basildon Council.

 

In addition to this the work of Brentwood Borough Council’s Planning Department has been outsourced to Thurrock Council.

 

1.            How much is this costing the council taxpayers of Brentwood?

2.            Is this arrangement going to be permanent?’

 

Cllr Mrs Mckinlay responded as follows:

 

“It is useful to clarify some misunderstandings, and so I advise as follows:  the Council has its own in-house team for Legal services, but we do sometimes receive assistance from Barking and Dagenham legal services – this should not be misconstrued as them doing all of the work in lieu of our Legal services.  We have an in-house team for Housing services, but we have recently put in place an agreement with Basildon Council in regard to the Council’s Repairs and Maintenance function.  In Planning, Environmental Health and Licensing we have a managed services agreement in place with Thurrock Council but again we still retain the in-house employees to deliver the service.  There is no additional cost to these arrangements and it’s actually of benefit to the Council as it gives us additional capacity and skills at a time when many of these areas suffer from sector shortages.  In Planning for example there is a national dilemma around how not just local authorities but interestingly private companies can recruit the necessary people with the right skills.  So, to be able to pull on that wider pool of experience, skills, knowledge and capacity is obviously of benefit to the Borough. 

 

In terms of whether these arrangements are permanent, I can answer ‘yes’ as there are no plans to stop that or change this.  However, we do constantly review the arrangements in place to see if a better one is suitable.”

 

 

Mr Martin Skinner

 

1.Local Development Plan ("LDP"):  Priests Lane Sites 044 and 178

 

I note that the current Regulation 18 LDP Consultation has removed the inclusion of "open space and/or sports facilities for public use" as part of the proposed site when compared to the previous Regulation 18 Consultation in 2016 and the document presented to Council at the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 15 November 2017.  This change appears to have been made on the basis of one letter from the owners of one of the sites in response to the 2016 Regulation 18 Consultation (response 15091) asking for the "open space and/or sports facilities for public use" to be deleted from the proposal stating that the land makes no contribution to either public open space or sports provision.  First, the playing fields did used to be hired by non-school local sports organisations.  Secondly, the 2005 Open Space Audit Report concluded that there was insufficient open space areas for the public in West Shenfield and that if land became available the opportunity to provide open space should be taken by the Council in this area.  The land is also adjacent to two schools.  Since that point there has been no change in the provision of open space in West Shenfield.  The 2016 Open Space Audit merely provides a stocktake of open space and does not draw any detailed conclusions unlike the more detailed work in 2005.  In addition, Sport England made written objections to the development of these sites as representations to the 2016 Regulation 18 LDP Consultation stating that the development of these sites would contravene Government policy.  Please can Councillor McKinlay explain why the inclusion of "open space and/or sports facilities for public use" has been removed from this proposed site in the current Regulation 18 LDP Consultation?

 

Cllr Mrs Mckinlay responded as follows:

 

 “The assumption that development of a site currently designated as protected open space should provide some replacement open space has not changed. What was clear in the Council’s Draft Local Plan regulation 18 consultation (January 2016) is that the level of open space and/or sports recreation space had not been set and that further work was required to inform the type and amount. This needs to be informed by updated sports and open space evidence, of which a study is nearing completion to inform proposals in the Plan. We are making sure that we consider the evidence to inform what comes forward on each site, but the intention is to retain a suitable element of open space as part of proposed redevelopment as well as land for school expansion.”

 

2. LDP: Prioritisation of planning applications once LDP has been submitted

 

The Council rightly prioritises the development of brownfield sites before greenfield and greenbelt land.  However it is possible, even likely, that planning applications will be submitted for the greenfield and greenbelt sites first because they are most easily and profitably developed.  Given that the housing projections may be overstated, it is possible that brownfield sites may be left undeveloped while the Community loses greenfield and greenbelt land.  What steps will the Council take to not only identify brownfield sites for priority development, but to ensure that these sites are actually developed before eating into precious resources of greenbelt and greenfield land? 

 

Cllr Mrs Mckinlay responded as follows:

 

“This is a useful point and relevant for future development rates.  The Local Plan will set out a trajectory for when sites are expected to come forward.  The trajectory is informed by encouraging brownfield first but also the full context of how quickly sites will come forward, considering site background and constraints etc.

 

The reality is that the amount of available brownfield land in the borough is limited, and there are no significant identified brownfield redevelopment sites that would yield high housing numbers (other than land at the Warley Depot and Ford HQ – which is half owned by the Council with decisions about depot relocation to be had and the other half dependent on Ford’s longer-term relocation plans, and so will naturally will not be capable of being delivered early in the Plan period).  For this reason, it is not likely that large brownfield sites will remain undeveloped – Brentwood is a viable place when it comes to land values and most brownfield sites identified are small in size.  We would expect a steady rate of delivery in urban areas as has been consistently achieved in the past.  The necessity to deliver new homes in what is now Green Belt will supplement this strategy and help meet local needs.

 

Ultimately the Council will be judged on the rate at which new homes are being delivered, and over the life of the Plan we expect a good mix between brownfield and greenfield locations.”

 

Ms Pearson

1. Local Development Plan ("LDP"):  The LDP includes an uplift on proposed new housing by a substantial 36% over the projected housing needs to meet affordability targets.  This is presumably to suppress house prices by creating over supply.  The Council recognised that the basis of these calculations is flawed because it ignores the earnings of the Borough residents working in London, whose spending power will always exceed those working in the Borough and so will always produce too high an uplift.  This pressure to overbuild in the Borough is detrimental to the current residents and the Council should be taking steps to ensure the Borough's problem is recognised at Central Government.  Other than sending in the response to the Government's consultation paper last year, what further steps has the Council taken to resolve this issue that is one of the most fundamental problems with the draft LDP now out for consultation?

2. The LDP states that the uplift calculated for housing affordability is 30%, a very high number in view of the Borough's restrictions.  The Council has stated that the long-term population projections are unstable, they are based on historic data that are unlikely to factor in reduced migration post Brexit.  It is likely that this 30% target is already over and above housing needs and yet the LDP uses a 36% uplift on housing needs to provide a buffer.  How does the Council justify increasing the housing projections by a contingency of 6% when not only are the affordability calculations dubious but the population growth forecasts over 20 years are particularly unstable because of Brexit?   

Mrs McKinlay responded as follows: 

“Work on the Local Plan is primarily focused on arriving at a point where the Council can adopt a ‘Sound’ Plan following examination in public.  The starting point is meeting local housing needs, based on evidence, and with enough flexibility to do so if things change such as certain sites not coming forward as expected or changes in the market etc.  Meeting needs is the minimum, the Council are expected to deliver this and “boost the supply of housing” further, as required by national policy.

The Council has responded to the Government’s consultation on the merits of a housing needs methodology that requires further increases of units to reduce house prices.  We await conclusions through the introduction of a revised National Planning Policy Framework, expected soon.  In the meantime, we are putting together a strategy that provides the maximum flexibility to arrive at a Sound Plan that can be adopted, with a strategy aimed at retaining our local character, but recognising that growth is needed.  The Regulation 19 Plan that will be published later this year will provide greater clarity on this point.”

 

 

 

David Gooderson

 

1. Councillor Aspinall made a request at the last Ordinary Council meeting for a conflicts of interests register as they relate to the Local Development Plan, but the Council legal team said there to is no need to collect this information from a legal perspective as the LDP is a consultation.  Recently Westminster Council have been in the press with regard to poor practice where unrecorded benefits were provided  by parties with an interest in Council and community business, such as developers.  There is significant public concern that the inclusion of certain sites within the LDP will give a potential financial benefit to the owners of those sites.  To allay growing public disquiet and to give transparency, please can the Councillors provide information to the public where they, or related parties, may have an interest, either as an owner, contractor or developer, in the sites or may have been provided with hospitality by interested parties, when the regulation 19 plan is presented for consultation? 

 

Cllr Mrs McKinlay responded as follows:

 

“Clearly the LDP is an extensive process.  When it comes down to the individual sites the sensitivities are not lost on any of us, and I think transparency and openness is absolutely essential in all of this.  I would just say that there is already a record of interests which all Members have to keep updated and that covers any land that is owned and indeed any directorship of companies and that is available on line for public viewing, that is outside of the whole LDP process and covers the entire workings of the Council and everything that we individually come across in terms of our everyday lives.

 

That record is there already, however I do think that that when it does come to the Full Council meeting to finalise the Regulation 19 process later this year that we look at a way to be even more transparent and make that statement again, so I’ll say tonight that I’ll be looking to have discussions with the group leaders around how best we do that.  It’s in everybody’s interest that even if they don’t like sites, and I do understand that, to have a plan that meets the number of homes required will mean that we are not going to be keeping everybody happy, that’s inevitable.  However, it is important that everybody understands that we’ve followed due process and that there is confidence in the process, system, and those making the decisions.  I will come back on the detail of that in due course”.

 

Question 2. I would like to ask each of the Councillors for my ward, Councillors Morrisey, Wiles and Barrett, at least two of who do not live in the ward, if they have made visits to Priests Lane and its junction with Middleton Hall Lane in the morning and evening school and work rush hours to experience what the current traffic situation is like. By this I mean a physical presence rather than just in a car adding to the traffic flow. Traffic congestion has been highlighted by many residents who have lodged comments about the current LDP. If they have not perhaps they would like to do soon say 3 occasions ( which I believe is the standard applied for traffic surveys) to gain first hand experience of the traffic. I would add that they should do so in the next few days before Brentwood Council break up for the summer holidays, although of course all of the A level students at the schools near the Town Centre have now left after their exams so the number of vehicle movements will have dropped already. I would hope that each councillor would report back to me once they have attended the area with their comments.

 

Cllr Barrett responded as follows:

 

 “As this is a very specific question I will answer it with as many specifics as possible. Whilst I have never completed a session where the exclusive purpose was to view traffic on the specific junction mentioned, I can confirm from my electronic diary in 2018 that I have on more than three occasions - the most recent being two evenings in the week commencing the 16th April - observed the traffic on Priests Lane at peak periods. I have also read with interest the information sent to me by local residents of Priests Lane which provides more information than these three anecdotal experiences.

 

Previously towards the end of the previous Regulation 18 Consultation I performed a similar morning observation following the considerable levels of interest in the sites numbered 044 and 178 in the draft Local Development Plan, both from interested residents and the Priests Lane Neighbourhood Residents Association. I share many of the concerns raised in the previous consultation responses on these sites and await the published responses to the latest Regulation 18 consultation.

 

I would be very happy to discuss this further with Mr Gooderson or any other resident of my Ward or anyone interested in the LDP - and am happy to justify any decision or vote - I actively seek to understand all evidence before making a decision especially on a matter of this importance.”

 

Cllr Morrissey responded as follows:

 

“Like Cllr Barrett, I have on various occasions observed the Priests Lane traffic at different times of day but I have not completed anything similar to a survey nor do I monitor my own movements around the ward in this fashion.  I do not believe this would class as evidence for any decision or vote but I would carefully consider anything submitted on sites 044 and 178.  We have a responsibility to consider all of the evidence within the LDP policies, appropriate development levels and the sites. Personal experience is important but hard evidence more so, which is why I welcome the submissions made and the reports I have individually received from residents, businesses and groups.  I also question the merit of any traffic survey done with such a light touch despite what the legislation may say.

 

Further to the statement by Cllr Barrett I would like to make clear that I recognise the combined concerns on Priests Lane of congestion and speeding traffic dependent on the time of day.  Both are issues that are worthy of consideration.  I believe considerable investment in road infrastructure is necessary for any development to be considered viable which given the location I’ve yet to see clear evidence that this is a possibility.  I welcome residents sending me their thoughts, concerns and proposals”.

 

Cllr Wiles’ arrival at the meeting had been delayed and therefore he was unable to respond to the questioner.

 

However, Cllr Mrs McKinlay responded as follows:

 

“The whole LDP process has to be based on evidence and it’s not simply enough to say we know the road is busy already.  I use the road regularly – I live in Shenfield and am up and down that road every day and I’ve sat in traffic just like, I’m sure, a number of us have but when it comes to a process involving the LDP it’s going to have to be based on the evidence.  Both studies are taking place now and it’s on the back of those studies and the evidence that we’ll not only be questioning it and going through it with a fine-tooth comb but ultimately making the decision”.