Staines residents meeting 13 December 2021

• Debenhams Meeting 13 December 2021
• Riverside Residents (Staines) Coalition Meeting 13 December 2021

Debenhams Meeting 13 December 2021

Many of these questions have been addressed previously in reports on several occasions (either in Cabinet or Council) in addition to residents questions to Council, plus numerous FOI's and extensive email exchanges.  Notwithstanding this, the answers presented will also be published to maximise understanding. 

Question 1: 

(In the council's consultation survey in the summer, the most telling response to the recent consultation about the future development of Staines is the overwhelming objection to the building of high-rise developments in Staines. This topped the schedule of comments in virtually all twelve sections that dealt with issues where this topic was relevant. For example: 62% of comments on what type of developments might be unsuitable in the town centre including the riverside said "high-rise" or anything above five storeys. 74% of comments on what scale of development would be suitable close to the river said "no high-rise" or nothing above six storeys. More than 90% of respondents agreed when asked if buildings close to the river frontage should be limited in height and size.

Furthermore, all of the town is at medium-high risk of flooding, vehicular access to the town is already severely constrained by the three bottlenecks at its entrances and exits (Iron Bridge on London Road, Laleham Road bridge and Staines Bridge), resulting in near-permanent traffic jams at key intersections, there is insufficient social and welfare infrastructure, such as doctors, schools, dentists...)

So, can the Council assure residents that these findings from the consultation will be reflected in the Staines Development Framework and new Local Plan for the borough? If not, and given this was the overwhelming and unequivocal finding of the consultation, what was the point of this aspect of the survey, and why would the council persist in encouraging developers to build high-rise residential developments in the town centre, given the overwhelming case for rejecting such developments?

Answer:

Before answering the question, I thought it would be helpful to give some background around the governance behind the Staines Development Framework.

For the benefit of the members of the public, the Staines Development Framework Task Group comprises all 9 Staines Councillors (Staines, Staines South and Riverside and Laleham), the Chair and Vice Chair of Environment and Sustainability Committee, the Deputy Leader, and the Surrey County Council (SCC) Staines Councillor. It is chaired by one of the Staines councillors. The role of officers is to guide and advise the members who sit on that group, and it is for those councillors to make recommendations up to the Local Plan Task Group, and then, if required, up to the Environment and Sustainability Committee. Both of these groups are advised by officers and those bodies make the actual decisions.

Turning to the question, we have analysed the feedback of the recent consultation on Objectives and Options for the Staines Development Framework and it has been the focus of work undertaken by the Staines Development Task Group to ensure it is shaped in a way that takes account of that feedback. Recently, the Task Group has been meeting on a weekly basis to develop the Framework, together with our consultants, and covering not just the issue of high-rise development in the town but also other important elements such as transport, movement and accessibility, and public realm.

There are yet more topics to cover too as the Framework is not just about the height of buildings, although this issue has already been discussed at multiple meetings. It is important that if we are to limit heights and densities in the town centre we have a credible justification for doing so, given that this is a sustainable, urban location with existing taller buildings where development opportunities are expected given that this is the type of sustainable, urban location where the Government would expect opportunities to be optimised.

It is therefore a balance between what the residents want and what is required of us. It's not as simple as being able to deliver on everything as we do have to work within the national policy context and we have said from the outset that public consultation is not a referendum. Notwithstanding, we feel we have made positive progress towards producing a Framework that delivers on this and will be accepted by a Government appointed inspector in order to ensure our plans are found 'sound'. We also need to ensure that what is delivered in the town also meets the needs of all our residents across the whole Borough.

It is worth just taking a moment to address the issue of the consultation feedback as there may be a misunderstanding on how it should be interpreted and whether the results can be said to be 'unequivocal'. I'll offer the following examples by way of explanation:

Question 11 in the questionnaire asked: Do you feel that any of these types of development might not be suitable in the town centre (including the riverside)? If so, which types?

The table shows 213 people responded with a general comment against high rise.  Out of the 745 people who responded to the questionnaire, this is 29%[1].  The table goes on to list 64 people responding "no high rise at the river" however these 64 can not be simply added to the previous 213 responses.  One person may have commented on both high rise overall and gone on to comment on heights near the river on more detail. The way the analysis was undertaken was to draw out every comment made and not to generalise a single individual's response into one comment.  

Q12 asked: Do you have a view on whether upper limits on building heights within the town centre should be set?

152 respondents made general comments that limits should be set.  This is 20% of the 745 overall respondents and 22% of the 693 who complete the questionnaire[2]. 45 respondents expressed a view which can be summarised as "no more high-rise".  As previously, these 45 respondents may be (and are likely to be) the same 152 people who made general comments that limits should be set.  Even the comments made on specific height limits can not be added.  An individual may have said "no more than three storeys next to the river and six to nine storeys on the high street" for example.  This would have been recorded as one comment against three storeys and a second comment against six to nine storeys.  The analysis was undertaken was to incorporate every comment made in an individual's response and record each part.  It would not be accurate to add the absolute numbers from any two comments and taking the 647 from the total on the final line of the table does not represent 647 individual respondents.

The 745 responses received from individuals or organisations have been broken down into more than 19,000 comments which are summarised in graphs and tables through the 

 which is published on the Council website https://www.spelthorne.gov.uk/afc

Regardless of the actual percentages involved, we have listened to the messages arising from the consultation in respect of taller buildings in the town, hence the Staines Development Task Group, officers and the consultants have been working on positive solutions and we are carefully assessing the areas in the town where heights and densities could be limited if it can be justified on character and townscape grounds.

Question 2:

Why does the council entertain planning applications that fall so woefully short of the council's policies on affordable homes provision within new planning applications (should be 50%), adequate play areas etc? Why haven't you put in place robust policies to enforce these requirements?

Answer:

Each Local Planning Authority (LPA) in England, including Spelthorne has a validation list setting out what forms, documents and plans should be submitted with each particular planning application type.  If the application is properly submitted, it must be validated and processed by the LPA.  An LPA cannot refuse to consider a planning application just because it does not comply with Council policy.  The only way we can refuse to consider an application is if it is invalid.  Failure to adhere to Council policy does not make an application invalid.

The Government requires the Local Planning Authority (LPA) to determine all valid planning applications in a timely manner  The extent that development plan policies are material to an application for planning permission, means the decision must be taken in accordance with the development plan unless there are material considerations that indicate otherwise.  The National Planning Policy Framework represents up-to-date government planning policy and is a material consideration that must be taken into account where it is relevant to a planning application or appeal.  This includes the presumption in favour of development found at paragraph 11 of the Framework. If decision takers choose not to follow the National Planning Policy Framework, where it is a material consideration, clear and convincing reasons for doing so are needed.   

The current housing policy in the adopted 2009 Local Plan requires any planning application involving 15 dwellings or more or a site of 0.5 hectares or more to provide up to 50% affordable housing. If a planning application proposes a lesser amount, the applicant is required to provide a viability assessment on an "open book" process.  The Local Planning Authority (LPA) appoints an independent valuer to assess the applicant's submission and report directly to the planning officer (those costs are borne by the developer).   This report will assess all the various costs associated with the development ie, build costs, s106 and CIL costs, finance, tax and developers profits. 

As a consequence, a percentage of affordable housing that the development can accommodate will be calculated.  The Council's independent valuer will scrutinise the applicant's assessment which will often lead to an increase in the amount of affordable housing secured. 

The current policy for open space with new housing developments is CO3.   The policy requires, in areas of inadequate open space or where it will become inadequate because of the development, new on site or off site provision or improvement to existing off site areas.  In addition, in larger schemes (30+ two bed dwellings), a children's play area will be provided.  Officers have sought to require this in larger developments.  For e.g., the recent residential proposal at Elmsleigh Road.  There is no shortage of public open space in this part of the Borough (Staines Ward).  This is confirmed by the Council's Draft Open Space Assessment November 2019, which is one of the evidence based documents for the new Local Plan. However, a play area was provided on site on the communal garden. There was also residential amenity for the residents and an off site contribution of £70,000 for new equipment within the Lammas Park.

Question 3:

(Recognising residents' opposition to the prospect of high-rise developments in Staines, the Council imposed a moratorium on such developments on sites where the Council would also be the developer to be in place until the new Staines Development Framework was approved by the Council. Staines Ward Councillors signed a statement to confirm their continuing insistence on maintaining the moratorium until the new Staines Development Framework has been adopted by the Council)

Can residents rely on the moratorium remaining in place until the new Staines Development Framework has been adopted by the Council? If not, why not?

Answer:

Under the Cabinet model of governance that the Council operated at the time of the imposition of the moratorium, it was only the Cabinet exercising their executive powers who could make the decision on whether to impose a moratorium on the Council's own developments.

Whether to impose a moratorium and the terms of such was debated by the Cabinet on the 25 January 2021 and as a product of that debate it was resolved by the Cabinet:

That a Moratorium on Council schemes in Staines-Upon-Thames should take place until such time as three things take place, with the intention that these will be completed prior to the Annual Council meeting in May 2021:

1.       That the Strategic Planning team undertake an Issues and Options consultation exercise for the Staines Development Framework.

2.       That a sub-committee, which was agreed at Extraordinary Council on 21 January 2021, is included in the recommendations of the Committee System Working Group to be reported to Extraordinary Council, currently scheduled for 25 March 2021.

3.       That the viability of all the developments are reviewed by the assets team.

The resolution by the Cabinet was clear and unambiguous in its terms that the moratorium is in place UNTIL these three requirements were fulfilled, the condition precedent. Cabinet did not specify any requirement for this to come back to Cabinet or Council. All three requirements have been fulfilled and therefore under the terms of that Cabinet resolution the moratorium ceases to exist without a legal requirement for this to go back to any committee or the Council for decision.

The three requirements have been fulfilled as followed:

1. The Issues and Options consultation has been completed, the results of which were reported to Councillors at the Environment and Sustainability on the 6 October 2021 and the Councillor decision was 'to agree publication of the consultation response document by the Strategic Planning Manager subject to minor amendments as discussed during the meeting and the provision of a summary document by the Staines Development Task Group, agreed by the Chair and Vice Chair of the Local Plan Task Group and Chair and Vice Chair of the Staines Development Task Group'.
2. The Sub-Committee (called the 'Development Sub-Committee') was established at the Annual Council meeting on the 27 May 2021 and sits on a fortnightly basis.
3. The Assets Team have reviewed the viability of the developments. These reviews have been presented to Councillors on 9 occasions including Full Council, Cabinet and Development Sub Committee.

 Question 4:

The declared purpose of the Council's constitution includes:

• to enable the Council to provide clear leadership to the Spelthorne community and work in partnership with residents, businesses and other organisations to make Spelthorne a place where people are fully engaged
• to support and encourage the active involvement of the Spelthorne community in the decisions which affect them
• to help councillors represent their constituents more effectively

At a recent Select Committee hearing the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities said it was important for local authorities to take their community with them as they develop their plans to ensure residents understand and have confidence in four key aspects: 1) that what is being proposed is not out of sympathy with the local area. 2) that there is a credible plan for the provision of the infrastructure required to support any new development plan. 3) that environmental issues have been properly addressed. 4) that local communities genuinely feel their voice is being listened to).

Does the Council agree that these are reasonable expectations for local taxpayers? If yes, does the Council agree with us that it falls well short of these requirements? If yes, what remedy does the Council propose?

Answer:

It is usual for Government ministers to make statements about how they intend to develop policies but until those policies are enshrined in updated guidance they mean very little. We are expecting a Levelling Up paper from the Government and expected it before Christmas but we have learned recently that this has been pushed back to April 2022, with a planning reform white paper to be published some months after that. It would then take more time for any proposals to be taken forward by updating the guidance. In terms of our own plans, we have carried out a series of public consultations on our Local Plan, including the recent consultation on Objectives and Options for the Staines Development Framework. There will be a further consultation next year on the draft versions of these documents, which will contain policies and allocations to ensure development respects the character of the area and preserve the environmental quality of the borough by requiring measures to mitigate the impacts of climate change, all supported by an Infrastructure Delivery Plan to demonstrate how education, healthcare and transport improvements will be delivered to meet the needs of existing and new residents. Our communities are at the core of our plans and we listen what they have to say. Whether we are able to meet all their expectations sometimes depends on whether this also complies with Government policy and guidance on planning issues, which means we are not always able to do so. That can result in difficult decisions but we are committed to producing plans that go as far as possible to take into account the reasonable wishes of our communities.

Question 5:

(At present, if Spelthorne Council's Planning Committee refuses permission for a planning application submitted by Spelthorne Council, Spelthorne Council cannot appeal that decision. When the Council's wholly owned housing company Knowle Green Estates was established, its business plan and associated funding from the Council specifically ruled out Knowle Green Estates submitting planning applications, the Council using the company as a smokescreen for unpopular planning applications, and the Council using this route to circumvent the appeals' barrier).

Will the Council now confirm that Knowle Green Estates must and will honour the existing arrangements and will not submit planning applications in its own name, and if it does do so, that the Council will terminate the Company's finance lines, as allowed for in the business plan agreed by full council and the Overview and Scrutiny Committee?

Answer:

Knowle Green Estates Ltd (KGE Ltd) is a housing company, wholly owned by Spelthorne Borough Council, established to help the Council tackle the housing crisis and provide new affordable homes for Spelthorne residents, key workers, and residents renting in the private sector. KGE Ltd's only shareholder is Spelthorne Borough Council with a dedicated assets team and KGE Ltd has a board of 4 directors (two of whom are Non-Executive Directors). It is the Council which manages the development of schemes, Knowle Green only becomes involved at the point of completion with its role to manage the assets on a long term basis and support the residential tenants.

Irrespective of the applicant, the Council (whether directly or indirectly) will not appeal any decision of the quasi-judicial planning committee.

There is no intention that moving forwards applications will be submitted by Knowle Green Estates Ltd. If this position were to change then this would need to be a decision of the councillors on the Development Sub Committee and KGE Board.  

Question 6:

Under whose authority do planning officers advise developers in preplanning meetings about making planning applications more likely to succeed, and who speaks for residents in these meetings?

Answer:

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) advises that pre-application advice should take place with developers and applicants. This is a national requirement, it is not one that is set locally and there is a government expectation that this process takes place.   It can help identify:

• whether in principle a proposal is likely to be acceptable
• the key planning issues and policies that need to be considered
• where the applicant may need further specialist advice to help prepare the application
• what changes may be needed to any draft proposals

It is worth highlighting that at no stage do planning officers advise developers that their proposals are likely to succeed.

An assessment can only be made once an application has been submitted and the LPA have all the relevant information in order for officers to reach a recommendation. Larger scale and more complex applications, where recommended for approval, are considered by the planning committee and it is for the councillors who sit on that committee to make those decisions.

Such advice can save an applicant time in preparing the application and also the time taken by the Council to make a decision on it.  In the case of proposals with little prospect of approval, early advice can avoid further abortive work. It can also quickly identify solutions to problems and therefore save costs. This is in line with the thrust from central government which is that planning should look to facilitate appropriate and acceptable development to assist with housing delivery.

The developer is encouraged to undertake a consultation with local residents, businesses and ward councillors prior to the submission of their planning application.  This gives an opportunity for the local people to view the plans and provide feedback to the scheme. However, central government does not mandate or insist that developers undertake such a process (or provide guidance on how, when, where, how long such consultations should take).

In order to address the concerns of residents and councillors about the perceived lack of public consultation, officers have developed a document to provide an improved collaborative way of working. Draft guidance setting out the Councils expectations around developer consultation on emerging planning proposals has recently been prepared by the Councils Planning Development Management team.  This will seek to secure consultation by the developer, with ward councillors, local residents and businesses at an earlier stage (again unfortunately we cannot insist on this as government legislation does not mandate such an approach).  This will normally apply on large major and sensitive developments.

In accordance with the statutory regulations, the LPA writes to all adjoining residents advising them of the application and inviting comments.  These comments are shared on-line and form part of the officer's assessment. 

Answer 7:

(Our MP has stated that he will assist to address the unrealistic housing quota for Staines, yet no progress been made. We all know that 65% of the borough is green belt and much of that is water. Staines itself is also entirely at medium-high risk of flooding, so it cannot be that difficult to argue a lower housing number. Runnymede has agreed with the inspector to shorten the plan period, seek to meet the full housing requirement for that period based on a significantly more up-to-date projections, which we know do not indicate the figures for housing we are being asked to comply with, and plan for an early review).

What is the problem at Spelthorne? Why can't Spelthorne do as Runnymede has done?

Answer:

Letters have been sent to our own MP, Kwasi Kwarteng, and the Secretary of State for Homes, Communities and Local Government (now including Levelling Up). Officers and Members have also met senior officials at MHCLG to discuss our Local Plan. Kwasi has met the new Secretary of State, Michael Gove MP, following our most recent letter from officers and a further letter is expected to be sent from the Leader. There is still no certainty that the methodology or the whole question of housing need will be amended and until such time as the national policy and guidance is changed, we are bound by the current standard method in order for our Local Plan to be found sound.

Runnymede were able to shorten their plan period as the Local Plan was examined under the transitional arrangements and were therefore relying on the 2012 National Planning Policy Framework which stated in para 157 that, 'Local Plans should be drawn up over an appropriate time scale, preferably a 15-year time horizon, and take account of longer term requirements'. What para 157 did not say is that this plan period had to all occur post adoption which all subsequent versions of the NPPF have stipulated. Therefore, Runnymede's plan was technically compliant with the 2012 NPPF as all the documentation related to the Local Plan had always stated that the Plan period began in 2015. Having spoken to my counterpart at Runnymede, they don't believe they would have been able to do so under the current NPPF.

As part of the Inspector's report on their Local Plan, the shortened plan period was accepted on the basis of Runnymede's commitment to an early review, rather than having the usual 5 years to do so, and had to commence it almost as soon at their plan was adopted.

Having read the Inspector's report and attended the examination hearing, I would add that it seems the Inspector gave quite a bit of weight to the Local Strategic Statement phase 2 work with Surrey County Council which had a commitment at the time to looking at the Green Belt and growth needs of the County strategically. The LSS has been replaced by the Surrey Place Ambition which has no such commitment, and therefore reducing the plan period on such grounds would be less likely to be supported.

Furthermore, Runnymede were not working to the standard methodology for calculating housing need due to the transitional arrangements they fell within at the time, whereas Spelthorne will need to use the standard method, as will Runnymede in its current review.

Question 8:

(It is clear that the best defence against turning Staines upon Thames into a mini-Woking of high-rise hell for residents is to have the Staines Development Framework and Local Plan for the borough at Regulation 19).

When does the Council expect this key milestone to be reached, and why has it not been reached before now?

Answer:

We agree that having a Local Plan and Staines Development Framework in place is our best defence to make our own decisions for the Borough. Our Regulation 19 consultation on the draft plans is scheduled to take place in Spring 2022 and we are working hard to meet that milestone, having held over 40 task group meetings with Members since last Summer. At all of those meetings there has been robust discussion and debate between councillors, and officers have been probed and challenged before councillors have made any recommendations on the way forwards.  

There have been delays (amounting to around 18 months) which arose from the pandemic when officers in the Strategic Planning team were redeployed to welfare work for several months during the first lockdown, and as a result of two successive changes in political leadership. This necessitated the setting up of new significantly enlarged task groups which then had to be collectively brought up to speed on matters.

We have accelerated our work to try to make up for lost time and are now on target with our latest timetable, with the aim of submitting regulation 19 In spring 2022, subject to the agreement of the councillors who sit on the Environment and Sustainability Committee.

Question 9:

Why has such a high proportion of new housing been allocated to Staines?

Answer:

Staines is our largest town in the Borough with many brownfield development sites that are suitable, and available, for higher density development. The Government encourages a brownfield-first approach and optimising densities on sites in sustainable locations. There are already high-rise buildings in the Staines, whereas this type of development is only found at Sunbury Cross elsewhere in the Borough. Development to meet our housing need will take place across Spelthorne, not just in Staines, and other areas are taking a proportionate amount of new homes through intensification of their own brownfield sites and a limited amount of Green Belt release.

The Councils' strategy in this regard was set out in both the Issues and Options Consultation 2018 and the Preferred Options Consultation 2019, both of which were agreed by Cabinet prior to  extensive public consultation.

Question 10:

Do you believe concrete high rises are suitable for Spelthorne's towns?

Answer:

As the boroughs main town, and being well served by public transport (both bus and rail), Staines is the most connected and sustainable location in the borough. It is also in walkable distance of a number of amenities, such as the Thames. Lammas Park, Staines Moor as well as the benefits of the retail units, plus leisure facilities. It has all the hallmarks of a town that is suitable as a focus of development in line with central government guidance (NPPF), as well as ensuring the use of brownfield land is maximised.  

High rise and higher density development has already taken place in Staines, for the reasons above, so it is considered suitable for these types of building. What the Staines Development Framework Task Group are currently focusing on is where in the town such development can take place without harming the character of the riverside setting. Councillors sitting on that task group are considering draft policies which have been developed in conjunction with officers which are intended to be included within the Framework. The clear direction from councillors on that task group has been to require high quality design of buildings at appropriate heights. Officers are developing policies which are robust and defensible at Inquiry, whilst still meeting this strategic steer from councillors.

It is useful to note that in response to the Government White Paper the response from Friends of the Earth included:

"Research commissioned by the RTPI found less than half of the new housing built between 2012 and 2017 was within 2km of a railway station. This must change if we are serious about tackling the climate and ecological emergency, and work towards a green, fair recovery".

The Council as landowner is looking at all options in terms of build construction, including modular builds for our town centre proposals as well as seeking to achieve zero carbon or meet passivhaus standards. As such, it is not a foregone conclusion that all developments in the future will be constructed out of concrete.

Question 11:

Do you care about protecting the borough's historic buildings and character?

Answer:

Yes, we care and fully recognise the need to preserve our historic buildings and character, which will be protected through policies in the Local Plan and Staines Development Framework (SDF). There are also statutory designations and legislation which set a higher bar, that the LPA are obliged to follow in respect of both listed buildings and conservation areas - which we do.

These policies in the current development plan and in our emerging new plans will respect the borough's many conservation areas and listed buildings. The work on the SDF is looking specifically at the Staines Conservation Area to ensure its character is preserved. Change can be positive if done sensitively as not all development in conservation areas make a welcome contribution and there will be opportunities to improve character through good design.

Question 12:

How many of the councillors and planning officers involved in these decisions about Staines actually live in Staines?

Answer:

Officers are required to act in a professional and impartial manner when dealing with planning applications, and where they live is not considered relevant. The Planning Code (which sits within the Constitution) provides clarity around the general role of a member of staff:

"Staff are responsible to the Council as a whole. They must always act openly and impartially and provide consistent professional advice based on the statutory planning framework, planning policies and procedures, ensuring councillors are aware of all relevant material planning considerations before decisions are made."

We fully appreciate that residents feel very strongly about developments in Staines, and it is their role, and that of their ward councillors, to provide local insight and highlight any concerns and issues that they have. It is then for officers to reflect this in their committee report, alongside the wider planning context, so that councillors who sit on the planning committee have all the relevant information in front of them to make a final decision. It would not be right for an officer to look to provide that local perspective (even if they were to live locally) as this would be contrary to the Planning Code.

That Code also provides clarity around the role of a member of the planning committee:

"Councillors have a special duty to their ward constituents, including those who did not vote for them, but their overriding duty is to the whole community. Whilst representing their constituents on planning issues and taking account of their views, councillors must make their decision within the statutory planning framework and base these on material planning considerations and what they believe is best for the Borough as a whole. A councillor is not under any obligation to represent a resident on a specific planning application if, in the opinion of the councillor, there are no issues which have wider significance for the neighbourhood, ward or Borough as a whole. "

It is also worth noting that the planning committee is politically proportionately representative and where possible, those representatives have been chosen from each of the wards across the borough. This is to ensure that there is no one dominant 'voice in the room', whether that be political or ward focused. This ensures the wider borough view can be given by the planning committee members.

Question 13:

Has the council studied the demographics of the new owners/residents of the recent high-rise developments in Staines? Are they meeting the needs of local families within the community or are they being acquired by non-local or foreign owners as investment opportunities to let and drive up real estate and rental prices?

Answer:

We produce a Strategic Housing Market Assessment and keep it up to date to ensure new development meets the demographic needs of our residents. Developers are required to take account of this evidence and demonstrate how their schemes will meet the identified need through the type and size of units they propose to deliver. When it comes to private housing, whilst we are able to make decisions based on demographic need, we don't have control over who purchases these units and who occupies them. That will be down to the market and the Government does not require us to allocate new homes built in the borough to existing residents

The Council recognises that there is a great demand for affordable housing in the borough, which outstrips supply. The number of households on the housing register is now around 3,000 (and we have a statutory duty to house around 1,500 of these). We know that private developers over the years have failed to provide the affordable housing that we need (either because it has not been viable or they have not provided rented accommodation and instead have provided shared ownership which is out of reach of the majority of our residents).

As a strategic landowner within Staines-upon-Thames, the Council has the ability to directly intervene to help redress this market failure.  Knowle Green Estates Ltd (a 100% Council owned company) is addressing this issue by ensuring that at least 50% of each development is delivering affordable/keyworker rented properties (tenants will only pay 80% of the current market rent). Those tenants will (in the overwhelming majority of cases) be Spelthorne residents. By building and managing our developments in this way we as a Council are ensuring that we are delivering housing for local families and residents of this borough.

Unfortunately, as a Council we do not have the ability to control the private developers and whether to choose to sell to foreign investors (who may simple hold as an investment rather than also using to receive a rental income stream). That would require a change in central government legislation with more direct intervention in the housing market.

Question 14:

Has the council considered compulsory purchase to free up dormant sites? 

Answer:

Compulsory purchase order (CPO) powers enable public bodies to acquire land compulsorily. Compulsory purchase of land requires the approval of a confirming minister.  Used properly, they can contribute towards effective and efficient urban and rural regeneration, essential infrastructure, the revitalisation of communities, and the promotion of business. There are also specific powers to deliver housing development.  However, a CPO should only be made where there is a compelling case in the public interest   One of the matters the Secretary will take into account is whether the purpose for which the land is being acquired fits in with the adopted Local Plan for the area or, where no such up-to-date Local Plan exists, with the draft Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.  Very often it will relate to a site allocated for redevelopment in the Local Plan or a site where planning permission has already been granted. It is not possible to use these powers to prevent development by others.

In the past, CPO powers were used to assist the site assembly of the "Two Rivers" development and also the dualling of South Street and Thames Street.  In more recent years, the former Cabinet agreed in principle, not detail to the use of compulsory purchase powers on two sites in Staines Town Centre.  One of these was 15 London Road, Staines and the second was 116 - 118 High Street, Staines.  Both of these sites were in separate ownership from the major re-developments on the adjoining sites (Eden Grove and London Square).  On the former, the expression by the Council of agreeing in principle to compulsory purchase powers was sufficient for the landowner of 15 London Road to sell to Berkeley Homes. 

Further CPOs may be considered where there is a compelling case in the public interest. However, when a CPO is sought any scheme must be deliverable and viable and usually planning permission has been granted prior to any application for a CPO to ensure deliverability.  It should also be noted that compensation would be payable for the compulsory acquisition of land.

The Council, as landowner, has a number of strategic sites which were acquired for regeneration and economic development purpose. These are currently sitting redundant and are costing the council considerable levels of money in terms of holding costs (across the whole portfolio this equates to £20 per council taxpayer to date).  As stated in a previous answer, the Councils 100% owned company Knowle Green Estates Ltd, is looking to deliver (in the main) affordable rented accommodation which is much needed housing for local Spelthorne residents.  We are therefore keen for these sites to be advanced as soon as possible.

Riverside Residents, Staines - Coalition Meeting 13 December 2021

Question 1:

What oversight and involvement did the body of elected Councillors have in the development of the draft Staines Masterplan; to what level of detail was it and its profound consequences for the amenity, appearance and infrastructure of the town explained and debated; and to what level has it been approved?

Answer:

The Staines Development Framework started off as the Staines Masterplan and the specification for the procurement of consultants to assist in its production was agreed by the then Leader of the Council - Cllr Ian Harvey (under the Cabinet and Strong Leader model). He was also the Chair of the Local Plan Working Party as it existed at the time (now the Local Plan Task Group).

A dedicated task group comprising Staines ward members (all nine councillors from three wards) was then set up under the previous Administration to help steer the work. This is now known as the Staines Development Task Group (SDTG) - though the composition of Members remains largely the same even under the current Administration.

The SDTG has been involved since the very early stages of the process, including meeting the consultancy team (David Lock Associates) and accompanying them on a walking tour of Staines. SDTG agreed the Review and Analysis paper that helped to shape the Objectives and Options for the Framework, which were then the subject of public consultation. SDTG also inputted into the list of stakeholders to engage with and the consultation strategy, including formulating the questionnaire. The input from councillors was extensive and resulted in a number of tangible changes including the opportunity for free text answers and a real focus on higher density and heights for example. This is a clear demonstration of the councillors very active involvement in the process, and goes well beyond simple 'oversight'. 

Councillors continue to work on steering the production of a draft Framework following that consultation. The SDTG reports to the Environment and Sustainability Committee, which approves key stages of the Framework, such as authorisation to go out to consultation. There was also a briefing that was open to all Members just before that consultation commenced.

It is worth making clear that there is no draft Staines masterplan as implied. The Framework has not been approved, nor is it even in draft form yet. For those residents here tonight that either attended the Environment and Sustainability Committee on 15 November 2021 or listened in will have heard myself Cllr Ian Beardsmore, as chair, highlight that:

"The group has met to consider next steps for the Staines Development Framework in light of the consultation responses and have viewed a draft structure of the document. They are starting to consider key issues such as townscape, including building heights and massing. Future meetings will cover transport and parking, public realm and amenity space. The group has also agreed a summary of the consultation responses that will be published alongside the full document."

Currently, Members of SDTG are working through key issues and decisions to develop the Framework ahead of a draft being produced for a further consultation. As members of that group I can confirm that this is the case, especially as we have not yet had the opportunity to discuss the whole breadth of issues that need to be considered in order to reach a point where the SDTG can make their recommendations for Staines. So, for example, matters such as infrastructure and green open spaces have only started to be discussed in the past two weeks.

Question 2:

Given its profoundly transformative impact on the town, if implemented, and given the demands of the Council's own Constitution, why was no attempt made to consult with the Staines community prior to announcing the Masterplan, and why has no attempt been made post its announcement to consult and explain/exhibit to the community its consequences for the amenity, appearance and infrastructure of the town?

Answer:

The Masterplan, as it was at the time, was announced via a press release on 5 May 2020. Staines Upon Thames Master Plan

Prior to that we had made reference to commissioning it during the Issues and Options consultation on the Local Plan in May and June 2018 and the Preferred Options consultation as far back as November 2019 to January 2020. It has therefore been in the public domain for nearly two years now.

Links to the material for both consultations are available on our website: local plan. We published a further update in June 2020 to announce the formation of the new Staines-upon-Thames Development Framework Group, who would provide the Member steer on the project, now known as the Staines Development Task Group.

Throughout, there has been a period of targeted stakeholder engagement that has included various groups such as the Staines BID and the Staines Town Society. Feedback from those groups was incorporated into the Analysis and Review Report, which set out the issues affecting the town and was published on our website (August 2020). We then held a public consultation in May and June 2021 on the Objectives and Options for the Framework, which included a virtual meeting.

A feedback report was published, considered and approved by the Environment and Sustainability Committee on 8 October 2021, this report was not exempt from publication and therefore is in the public domain. It is currently being uploaded onto the planning pages on the website so all the information is in one easily accessible location.

It is worth re-iterating again that there is no draft masterplan. This is an iterative process, and councillors are actively involved each and every step of the way. The announcement back in May 2020 was to advise that the Council were about to start a process which would eventually result in a draft Staines development framework. Once the SDTG have reached a position where they can recommend a draft Staines Development Framework document then the Council will consult with all residents within the borough.

Question 3:

In the almost two years since its announcement, and given progress in its implementation, why has no definitive work been done to determine whether the infrastructure the Masterplan requires is practical or affordable?

Answer:

Just to clarify before responding to your question in detail, the Council is not able to progress the implementation of a document that has not yet been formatted, discussed or agreed by the councillors who sit on the SDTG.

Turning to your point on infrastructure specifically, we have explained a number of times where we are with the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) and how Staines feeds into this work. The most recent example is the response to yours and Kath Sanders questions to Environment and Sustainability Committee on 9 November 2021.

As part of identifying the potential infrastructure needs arising from the new Local Plan officers have had a number of engagements with key infrastructure providers to understand from them what their needs are (this has included utilities, highways, education and health). It is for them to advise the Council what their requirements are - it is not for the Council to 'assume', or work on the basis of anecdote (as this will be examined at the Inquiry and any requirement needs to be backed up by evidence). 

No 'showstoppers' have been identified by the work carried out so far, which means that, based on the numbers of homes expected to be delivered through the Local Plan which includes the sites in our Strategic Land Availability Assessment, the infrastructure providers (during our meetings with them) have not advised us that any identified infrastructure needs cannot be met.

We have undertaken two formal periods of consultation with these providers as well as regular evidence gathering based on information they have provided to us, over the course of the last 12 months.  The IDP, once Part 2 is complete, will identify the specific needs, if any, required for each allocated site and how they will be delivered. It is incumbent on the providers themselves to fund what is required but S.106 and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funding can be used to supplement this.

Question 4:

On what grounds do the Council feel it appropriate to encourage developers to apply for permission to build any tower-blocks of flats on the several sites earmarked in the Masterplan unless and until the overall scheme is deemed to be achievable and desirable?

Answer:

There has been no encouragement by officers for developers to submit applications, and we would welcome you giving us examples of where you feel this has been the case. Hopefully the explanation of the process below will help to explain the route that developers can take, and will re-assure you that your assertion about encouragement is not accurate.  

Developers frequently approach the Local Planning Authority (LPA) to discuss development proposals on sites which they either own or are intending to purchase before an application is submitted. The LPA are expected to respond to these requests.  Indeed, central government strongly encourages this approach to help ensure that when proposals are submitted, they can be dealt with by the LPA in a timely matter (e.g. in line with statutory government timescales for decision-making - 13 weeks for major applications). 

On some of the allocated sites to which you are reference, some developers made contact with the LPA some time ago.  For example, the LPA were approached in 2019 on the Inland Homes residential scheme, Elmsleigh Road, before the Development Framework (not a Masterplan) process got underway.  Some developers have been in contact more recently, but as already explained the LPA cannot refuse to have those pre-application discussions with them. Nor can the LPA refuse to consider any applications in advance of the adoption of the Staines Development Framework.

In addition, we would point out that the Development Framework has not yet reached a stage where any sites have been 'earmarked', and more detail has been provided in other answers on where we are in that process.

Planning officers are required to determine planning applications in accordance with the development plan which exists at the time and any other material considerations.  At present, the relevant policies are set out in the Local Plan 2009 and the Government's National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).  The latter takes priority where the policies are more up to date. A revised Local Plan or Staines Development Framework do not currently exist and the Regulation 19 consultation versions of both will not be published until Spring 2022.  Both currently carry negligible weight in any decision making.

Question 5:

A Council Task Group was created in June 2020 to review the Masterplan and accommodate opposition to high-rise developments in a new plan for the town (to be incorporated into the new Local Plan for the borough). What has this Task Group produced and why in the interim, knowing the Task Group's goals in relation to restricting the height of new buildings, did the Council not seek an amendment to the existing Local Plan to limit the height of new buildings pending the development of the new plan (per the Council's moratorium on high-rise developments where it is the developer, such as Thameside House?)

Answer:

The Terms of Reference for the Task group are in the public domain for everyone to view. They are on the Councils website - click on the download to view the Staines Development Framework specification https://www.spelthorne.gov.uk/sdf

The terms do not include any remit to oppose high-rise development in Staines, although considering appropriate heights and densities is one of the key issues for the Framework.

The work of the Task Group so far has been to review and agree the Analysis and Review Report, the consultation strategy, including the questionnaire, the Objectives and Options report and the consultation response document. Members of the group are now reviewing taking this work forward to inform a draft of the Framework for the next public consultation.

It has been explained previously, and supported by legal advice, why the existing Local Plan cannot be simply amended to include a height restriction policy. This was covered in the report which went to Extraordinary Cabinet on 25 January 2021, and as an urgent item to Cabinet on 19 May 2021.

The Core Strategy was adopted in 2009, prior to the NPPF, and is out of date. We are progressing a new Local Plan and that is what should contain any new policies. There is a process for amending an existing development plan document that is lengthy and would include consultation and examination so to do that on an old plan when we are advancing a new one would be futile. An inspector would say it should be considered as part of preparing the new Local Plan. There is also no evidential basis for imposing a height restriction across a whole town, especially when there are existing taller buildings.

 The Framework can be used to assess specific areas of the town, through character and townscape analysis, where taller buildings may or may not be acceptable and we can therefore provide a reasoned justification for this, which we cannot do when a blanket limitation is proposed. It is imperative that whatever is included in the Framework is sound from a legal perspective rather than risk delaying its adoption.

Question 6:

Given that the supposed (but disputed) need to pepper Staines with tower-blocks of flats is in large part a consequence of the government-imposed annual housing target of 611, why has the Council not yet responded to the Ministry of Housing's assertion that the target is merely a starting point for negotiation, and the public offer from Spelthorne's MP Kwasi Kwarteng at the beginning of June 2021 to help negotiate a lower number? Indeed, what evidence is there of any serious attempt being made by the Council over the past two years to challenge the housing target?

Answer:

The Government does not impose a housing target but has produced a standard methodology for calculating housing need and we are expected to leave no stone unturned in order to aim to meet that need. Other local authorities that have attempted to advance plans that do not meet that need under the standard method have failed. The need figure is expressed as a starting point, but exceptional reasons must be given as to why it cannot be met and in reality it acts as a minimum rather than a maximum.

Prior to the standard method, when authorities identified their own need through Strategic Housing Market Assessments, our need was 552 - 757 homes per year and so this is not out of kilter to what the standard method has calculated. Despite this, we are continuing to push for the standard method to be adjusted to allow for more recent household growth projections to be used, which would bring our need figure down.

An answer has already been provided in respect of the point raised around challenging the housing target and our interactions with Kwasi Kwarteng MP.

Question 7:

Why has no attempt been made to explain to the Staines community and their elected representatives why almost half the borough's housing target must be dumped on Staines?

Answer:

Throughout the preparation of the new Local Plan, we have held consultations with the public, starting with Issues and Options then Preferred Options, and more recently the Framework consultation on Objectives and Options. These consultations involved speaking to residents at public events in areas of high footfall, which included Staines town centre, and at meetings held in the Council Offices. They were well attended and all the material plus FAQs were available to view.

At these meetings and events, we went into considerable detail to explain how our housing need was calculated and options for how to deliver that need. In particular, the Issues and Options consultation in 2018 included an option to focus delivery in Staines and to produce a masterplan to facilitate this.

The decision was taken by the Council, following feedback from the consultation, that this option be discounted in favour of the fourth option to distribute housing delivery in a more balanced way by intensifying brownfield sites, releasing a small amount of Green Belt and producing a masterplan for Staines without focusing all growth as residential but alongside retail and commercial uses.

Staines is our largest town and one with the most land available for developing brownfield sites at higher densities than some of our other towns and villages so inevitably it will be an area for growth opportunities. Paragraphs 124 and 125 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) refers to well-designed schemes that make an efficient use of land, stating "masterplans can be used to help ensure that land is used efficiently while also creating beautiful and sustainable places. Where there is an existing or anticipated shortage of land for meeting identified housing needs, it is especially important that planning policies and decisions avoid homes being built at low densities." Our current strategy does disperse development across the borough and still proposes some small Green Belt release to balance delivery.

Question 8:

The role of any local authority's planning function is required to be entirely separate from its other functions. So why does the Council permit the clear and dangerous conflict of interest of its Planning department reporting to the same officer responsible for the Council's property and related interests?

Answer:

The Local Planning Authority fulfils a quasi - judicial function and is governed by extensive planning legislation. Planning officers have to make recommendations and decisions on the basis of their professional opinion and experience. As members of the Royal Town Planning Institute officers are bound by the Code of Conduct based on five core principles: competence, honesty and integrity; independent professional judgement; due care and diligence; equality and respect; and professional behaviour. In particular, the code states "members must exercise fearlessly and impartially their independent professional judgement to the best of their skill and understanding".

It is not unusual for Councils to have a senior officer whose portfolio covers these two areas. In addition, the breadth of the portfolio is such that the Group Head concerned does not get involved in day-to-day operational matters in any of the areas they oversee. This Group Head reports to one of the two Deputy Chief Executives who then reports into the Chief Executive.

There has been a recent change in reporting lines within the organisation, such that the Property and Assets Manager now reports directly into the Chief Executive on all property and assets matters. 

It is worth noting that work undertaken by the Asset Team on any development scheme, including though not limited to design and viability analysis, is subject to rigorous assessment and review by councillors who sit on the Development Sub Committee. Whilst officers make recommendations, it is councillors that make the actual decisions. As residents will note from the agendas which are presented to the Development Sub Committee, larger scale schemes have been considered and discussed by councillors on multiple occasions to ensure they have a full understanding before they reach a final decision.

Question W:

Why were members of the Planning Committee told by officers that they were not permitted to be involved in the development of the Council's case to defend the Committee's decision at the Inland Homes appeal/inquiry?

Answer:

Before answering the question, it would help to set out a bit of background around the process to aid everyone's understanding.

The appeal by Inland Homes is being dealt with by an expert external planning consultant and counsel.  This has always been the practice of the authority with schemes where the officer's recommendation is overturned by the Planning Committee. This has never been challenged or queried in the past even when the Council have had very controversial proposals.   Councillors have always trusted the professional integrity of the external consultants to present their views accurately and appropriately. So, for example, they will have listened very carefully to the debate at the committee meeting and reviewed the decision itself in order to get a clear understanding of the committees' concerns. 

This use of external advisors ensures that a planning officer is not compromised when asked for his/her opinion when giving evidence at the Inquiry, which could in turn dilute the successful presentation of the case.

The planning consultant and counsel have considerable experience in dealing with complex appeal schemes including planning committee overturns and officers are confident that the appeal will be robustly defended. It should be noted that those two professionals have recently successfully defended an overturn of an officer's recommendation in respect of a similar scheme.

Preparing the case for an inquiry of this nature involves a considerable amount of work and the planning officers are already fully stretched with current workloads.  Planning officers have assisted with providing information for the case and are the "go to" people for the consultant and counsel.  The council's lead planning case officer who is assisting with the appeal, has dealt with 1000+ emails since the appeal was lodged.  In addition, there have been a number of meetings and phone calls.  These require very quick timescales for the turnaround of information (often within the hour). Unfortunately, it is simply not practical to involve councillors in the process for this reason. 

Councillors do have the option of getting involved in other ways - one example would be writing to the Inspector directly with their views. For those of you who listened into the Inquiry via YouTube will also not doubt be aware that a number of councillors (Cllrs Beecher and Mooney) were able to speak directly to the Public Inquiry to express their views and those of local residents.

You can view the Council's proof of evidence on the website. This is a detailed document setting out the case against the proposal (LPA's proof). The authors of these documents were the 'witnesses' at the appeal and were subjected to cross-examination by the opposing barrister and questioned by the Inspector.

Question Do:

Do Council officers agree with the high level of collaboration and common ground between themselves and the developers as claimed by Inland Homes (in their appeal 'Statement of Case') and Future High Street Living (in presenting their proposed scheme to demolish the Debenhams building and replace it with 14-storey twin towers of flats to the community on 13 October)?

Answer:

Planning officers offer an extensive pre-application advice service for developers (and residents) covering all sorts of development proposals which require planning permission.  This approach is encouraged by various policy documents including national advice.  Pre-application meetings took place with both Inland Homes and the developers of the former Debenhams building.  It is a helpful way to talk through issues but is not binding on officers or members in decision-making.  Sometimes developers choose not to take officer's advice on some or all issues.

It is important to note that any pre-application advice provided by the LPA cannot pre-empt the democratic decision-making process or a particular outcome in the event that a formal planning application is made. 

A Statement of Common Ground (which is a requirement by the Planning Inspectorate) has been added to the documents in advance of the Inquiry starting.  This was an agreed statement between the LPA and the appellant on certain matters including: a description of the site and surroundings, a description of the proposed development, planning history and planning policy.  The purpose of this document was to avoid repetition at the inquiry on factual matters and to focus Inquiry time on the areas of disagreement between the parties.

Questions asked on Saturday 11.12.21

Reference questions 1,2,3,4,8 and 10. From what we have learned from the Inland Homes appeal/inquiry and both documentation from and conversations with Future High Street Living, officers appear to be pursuing and promoting the aspirations set out in the draft Staines Masterplan and collaborating very closely with developers in doing so. For example, the QC for Inland Homes made many and frequent references to the help they had had from officers in developing their scheme leading to complete agreement between the parties. On the vexed issue of height, he said (and wasn't challenged) that officers had made it clear "at an early stage of pre-application discussions" that "height is not an issue". Both Inland Homes and Future High Street Living have overtly placed their proposals in the context of other high-rise developments planned for sites from Debenhams to Thameside House. Although the Inland Homes QC, the Council's lawyer and the Planning Inspector finally agreed the draft Masterplan carried "the same negligible weight" as the newly emerging Local Plan, it seems pretty clear officers are pursuing and promoting the draft Masterplan as if it had an altogether different status.

Answer:

There is a planning presumption in favour of sustainable development and part of the role of officers is to engage with developers at an early stage to seek to secure an acceptable scheme. Indeed, national policy encourages this practice. Discussions cover a wide range of issues, however, pre-application discussions for the large schemes are not intended to pre-approve applications and until the application is submitted, the totality of the process cannot be fully assessed.  There is no restriction on building heights in Council planning policies.  There is, however, a height restriction in Spelthorne imposed by Heathrow Airport which is 67.95m aod (above ordnance datum) within Staines. Depending on the surface levels of the land, this equates to 15-16 residential storeys.

Just to re-iterate that there is no masterplan, and work is under development for the Staines Development Framework. This has been covered exhaustively in the answers already given.

Question:

Reference question 6, we understand the 'compelling case' for a lower housing target has now been sent to Kwasi Kwarteng. He had said publicly back in June that he would support the Council's efforts if he was given the 'compelling case'. Given the defining role of the housing target in developing the new Local Plan, and given a Task Group to review/revise the Staines Masterplan was established 18 months ago, two questions arise: 1) What serious efforts had been made between June 2020 and 2021 to secure a lower housing target? 2) If serious efforts had been made in the past why was the 'compelling case' not already documented ... and why did it take five months from June 2021 to put it together?

Answer:

This has already been covered in previous answers. Questions 7 of the Debenhams session.

Question:

Reference question 8 and 10, revelations during the Inland Homes appeal/inquiry raise a further important issue. The Council's lawyer and expert witness made a very compelling case for why the Inland Homes proposed development failed spectacularly to meet Council and related policies in relation to both height and parking provision. We would like to understand on what basis planning officers had come to such a different view and what direction they may have had from above.

Answer:

The planning officer's lengthy and detailed report to the Planning Committee spells out very clearly the evaluation of the scheme against council planning policy and national guidance.  Once the Planning Committee took a different view to that of the officers, it was necessary to engage planning consultants to seek to robustly defend the decision. This process is quite common and it does not follow that the planning officer's view was wrong. The applicant has a right of appeal, the planning witnesses at the public inquiry presented the case as best they could and the independent Inspector will determine the matter.  It should also be noted that after the determination of the application, the revised National Planning Framework was published (20/07/21).  This increased the focus on design quality, not only for sites individually but for places as a whole. Terminology is also now firmer on protecting and enhancing the environment and promoting a sustainable pattern of development.

Question:

The other issue on which we would like to have some clarity is the current status of the moratorium, why a declaration by officers was apparently enough to remove it (or was it removed?), and what issues are likely to determine its fate at PC&R? In particular, will the committee be discussing/deciding not only if the moratorium conditions have been met, but also whether any new conditions should be applied (e.g. to recognise and accommodate the views of residents)

Answer:

This has been covered in a previous answer. Question 3 of the Debenhams session.

[1] These figures have been checked following a question at the meeting on Monday 13 December and are correct. 

[2] These figures have been checked following a question at the meeting on Monday 13 December.  Previously 23% was stated not 22%.