Agenda item

To consider the following Questions for the Leader, which have been submitted in accordance with Procedure Rule 9.2:

1.         “Borough of Redditch Local Plan No.4 and Redditch Housing Growth Consultation Documents”

Mr David Rose

2.         “Borough of Redditch Local Plan No.4 and Redditch Housing Growth Consultation Documents”

Bentley Area Action Group – Mr Malcolm Glainger, Chair

(Questions attached)

The Leader responded to two questions submitted in accordance with Procedure Rule 9.2 from Mr David Rose and Mr Malcolm Glainger. Both questions related to the Borough of Redditch Local Plan No.4.

Mr Rose asked the following question:

Why are Redditch Borough Council still advocating building between 600 and 3,400 houses in Webheath, when Redditch Borough Council Planning Committee on 22nd May, 3013 voted against Taylor Wimpey building 200 new houses, (which surely means that Redditch Borough Council have decided not to build in Webheath), because of poor highway infrastructure, over subscribed local schools, poor unsustainable infrastructures (including foul sewage) etc.?

The Leader replied as follows:

Paragraph 3.16 in the Report answers this question and explains why an early planning application from a developer, on part of a proposed site, is different to the consideration of sites for inclusion through the Plan making process.

3.16 “…With regards to Policy 48 Webheath, Officers are aware that the Council refused planning permission on 22^nd May 2013 for a proposal on part this Strategic Site set out in the Draft Local Plan No.4. The refusal was based upon the proposal’s additional traffic generation on the local road network coupled with the lack of suitable infrastructure to support the development and the lack of contribution towards the wider highway network infrastructure; however this does not alter the fact that the proposal site and the remainder of the Webheath Strategic Site is capable of sustainable delivery in the short to medium term, subject to necessary infrastructure being delivered. This Strategic Site should therefore continue to feature in the Proposed Submission version of the Borough of Redditch Local Plan No.4.”

More details will follow later this year on the viability of the site to be able to deliver the necessary infrastructure. This will confirm whether there are showstoppers to the Local Plan’s proposed allocated sites being delivered sustainably. The necessary works for the Foxlydiate site will be tested through detailed highway modelling. The costs of wider highway infrastructure and other sustainable transport costs will need to be aggregated to the Webheath site and to the cross boundary site at Foxlydiate in order to test the viability accurately. The cost of implementing necessary sewerage treatment for the two sites is borne by both the developer (for the on-site drainage, connection, pumping station and pressurised sewer) and Severn Trent Water and therefore has little impact on the ability of the site to be delivered, in any case the cost of upgrade works to serve these sites would not be vastly different to the alternative site options.

Mr Rose subsequently asked the following supplementary question of the Leader:

Mr Rose stated that he did not agree with the answer provided by the Leader and briefly recounted the reasons given for refusal of an application to build 200 dwellings at Webheath by the Planning Committee in May of this year, the decision of which body had concluded by declaring that the proposed development was not sustainable. Mr Rose suggested that central Government had given the green light for building on any land provided it was sustainable and enquired whether this would mean that the Borough of Redditch Local Plan No.4 would be declared unsound when it came before the Planning Inspector in due course.

Officers provided an answer to this supplementary question on behalf of the Leader, as follows:

The purpose of the Inspection was to establish whether the decision made by the Council on the Borough of Redditch Local Plan No.4 was sustainable and the Council would have to await the conclusion of the Inspector’s deliberations.

Mr Glainger asked the following question:

If central government do not require Bromsgrove District Council to release green belt land for Redditch housing growth, where would RBC propose to build the extra 3400 houses within their own boundaries?

The Leader replied as follows:

It is unlikely that Central Government would make such a judgement about not requiring development for Redditch in Bromsgrove District. At the examination of Redditch’s and Bromsgrove Plans, the Planning Inspectorate will test the soundness of the plans. If there is no such requirement incumbent on Bromsgrove, then the examinations can explore this matter and the Inspector will ultimately take this view and advise the Councils.

There are no locations within Redditch Borough for this amount of housing development to go. If there was any prospect of any other pieces of land within Redditch being developable, the West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy Panel of Inspectors in their Report of September 2009 would not have suggested that Redditch’s requirements would need to be met cross boundary, if they were not satisfied with the evidence. All the recent evidence from Central Government and the Planning Inspectorate points to Councils having to work together under the duty to cooperate.

There are no developers waiting or requesting allocations on larger sites in Redditch green belt. There are no more suitable sites within Redditch’s urban area which are able to be allocated for residential development because all potential sites have been counted as a contribution towards offsetting the requirements.

Mr Glainger subsequently asked the following supplementary question of the Leader:

It was declared astonishing that Redditch Borough Council did not have a Plan B or contingency should the present Plan fail to be adopted. Surely if there was no more room to build within the Borough the Council should simply declare that the Borough was full.

Once again, Officers provided an answer to this supplementary question on behalf of the Leader, as follows:

The Council was required to plan for objectively assessed development. Should the Inspector conclude that the land identified in Bromsgrove Borough was not suitable for housing development and there was no land available for additional housing in Redditch the Inspector would report such a finding to the Council accordingly.