Motion submitted by Councillor Shuttleworth:

“Eastbourne Borough Council calls upon the Government to respond to the concerns expressed by the Local Government Association and Councils up and down the country about proposals in the Government Planning White Paper ‘Planning for the Future’.

Eastbourne Borough Council makes the following points:

·         That the Planning Paper needs to recognise that housing targets are best set by local Councils based upon the needs and restraints of their area. The Government imposed targets approach has failed local communities; and

·         That developers must continue to pay a section 106 levy towards local infrastructure costs. The proposed national Infrastructure Levy will inevitably lead to a reduction in local funding of transport, road improvements, drainage and other infrastructure costs and will lead to less local control.

            Further that:

·         The number of sites with existing planning permissions for houses that are extant, have not yet been built, or even started to be built, along with the high proportion of planning applications that are agreed are a clear sign that the planning process is not as big a barrier to development as the government claims;

·         The planning process has over recent years become increasingly divorced from the needs and desires of local communities. The proposals contained within the White Paper will exacerbate this unwelcome direction of travel;

·         The proposals contained within the White Paper will diminish the role of planning authorities, planning committee members and ward councillors;

·         While the current planning system is not perfect this is at least in part due to continued cuts by central government funding to local planning authorities which have, in turn, led to local authorities having to reduce expenditure on planning services. These cuts and ongoing centralisation of policy coming from Government have affected both the processing of planning applications and enforcement activities; and

·         Previous changes to the planning system, such as the introduction of the Unitary Development Plan and the Local Plan, have proved enormously expensive and time-consuming. Further changes are likely to be the same, with any benefits being outweighed by the costs involved.”

At the start of this item the public speech received from Dennis Scard, Chair of the Meads Community Association was read out.

Councillor Shuttleworth moved and Councillor Murray seconded the motion set out on the agenda, to call upon the Government to respond to the concerns expressed by the Local Government Association and Councils up and down the Country about proposals in the Government White Paper ‘Planning for the Future’.

Councillor Smart moved and Councillor Ansell seconded an amendment to the recommendation, which had been circulated to all Councillors, as below:

“1. To amend the first paragraph of the motion to read:

“Eastbourne Borough Council calls upon the Government to respond to the concerns expressed by the Local Government Association and Councils up and down the country about proposals for “Changes to the current planning system” and in the Government White Paper “Planning for the future”, and welcomes positive points from the White Paper, particularly those that support our ambition to be a carbon neutral town by 2030.”

2.    To delete the detailed points that follow after this paragraph. “

The Council discussed the motion and the amendment.

The amendment was put to a vote and lost (9 votes for, 16 votes against, 1 abstention, 1 unable to cast a vote due to connectivity issues).

The original motion was then put to the vote and carried by 17 votes for, 0 votes against and 10 abstentions, as follows.

Resolved that:

“Eastbourne Borough Council calls upon the Government to respond to the concerns expressed by the Local Government Association and Councils up and down the country about proposals in the Government Planning White Paper ‘Planning for the Future’.

Eastbourne Borough Council makes the following points:

·        That the Planning Paper needs to recognise that housing targets are best set by local Councils based upon the needs and restraints of their area. The Government imposed targets approach has failed local communities.

·        That developers must continue to pay a section 106 levy towards local infrastructure costs. The proposed national Infrastructure Levy will inevitably lead to a reduction in local funding of transport, road improvements, drainage and other infrastructure costs and will lead to less local control.

           Further that:

·        The number of sites with existing planning permissions for houses that are extant, have not yet been built, or even started to be built, along with the high proportion of planning applications that are agreed are a clear sign that the planning process is not as big a barrier to development as the government claims.

·        The planning process has over recent years become increasingly divorced from the needs and desires of local communities. The proposals contained within the White Paper will exacerbate this unwelcome direction of travel.

·        The proposals contained within the White Paper will diminish the role of planning authorities, planning committee members and ward councillors.

·        While the current planning system is not perfect this is at least in part due to continued cuts by central government funding to local planning authorities which have, in turn, led to local authorities having to reduce expenditure on planning services. These cuts and ongoing centralisation of policy coming from Government have affected both the processing of planning applications and enforcement activities.

·        Previous changes to the planning system, such as the introduction of the Unitary Development Plan and the Local Plan, have proved enormously expensive and time-consuming. Further changes are likely to be the same, with any benefits being outweighed by the costs involved.”