Good evening everyone and welcome to the meeting
of Whelan Hatfield, Borough Council's Cabinet Planning
and Parking Panel.
I now need to make a number of statutory announcements.
Those present at the meeting should be aware
that by law it can be recorded by anyone attending.
Therefore, this meeting can be filmed, audio recorded,
photographed or reported electronically
by the use of social media.
Anyone recording must cease as soon
as the meeting is declared closed.
To confirm, this meeting is being live streamed,
therefore anyone present should be aware they are being recorded
and broadcast via the internet.
For this meeting, should a vote be required, we will do
so by raising our hands please.
Please can I remind members to indicate when you wish to speak
by raising your hand and only turn
on your microphone when called upon.
Thank you.
Okay, agenda items, item number one,
apologies and substitutions.
We have received an apology from Councillor Shah
and Councillor Weston is substituting for him.
Any other apologies?
No, thank you.
Item number two, can I ask members to confirm
as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held
on the 14th of March, 2024?
Could you raise your hands for me?
Thank you, those that were here.
Yep, thank you very much indeed.
Item number three, notification of urgent business
to be considered under item eight.
I've received none, any urgent business?
No, thank you guys.
Item number four, declarations of interest by members.
I invite members to make any declaration of interest
in relation to items on the agenda.
Councillor Kingsbury.
I'll just say Hertfordshire County Council in case.
Thank you.
And Councillor Toussou.
I'm saying County Councillor.
Thank you very much.
Item number five, public question time and petitions.
We have no public questions or petitions.
At this point though, I'm going to hand over to Chris Barnes
to give a brief explanation of how this panel works.
Thank you, Chair.
So similar to last year, ahead of each of the cabinet panels,
we've just got a few slides to outline for members
new to the panel and rejoining us
around how the committee works and what we consider.
So cabinet panels in general are set up
to deal with policy and development
in individual specialised areas.
And so we do have a few across the council,
of which this is one.
And they have cross-party political representation
with members, the chair and vice chair selected.
We operate in line with the constitution,
so that sets out where the cabinet's powers are
or the cabinet panel's powers are.
And we consider reports and make recommendations to cabinet.
And so cabinet planning and parking panels specifically.
So we work on the development of strategies, policies,
and plans relating to, as you would probably guess,
planning and transportation matters.
And we make recommendations to cabinet
in relation to the adoption of such strategies, policies,
and plans as they go through.
And there's often updates along the journey of developing
those documents as well.
We consider the results of any sustainability appraisal
reports and such policies and the results
of public consultations.
And we evaluate and submit representations
to panel documents where it's appropriate for the committee
to consider them to other bodies as well.
And then we also consider the annual monitoring reports.
So those of you who've been on the committee before
will have seen that that's a regular item that comes to us,
as well as the key milestones for the local development
scheme on the local plan.
So there's a few examples of recent items that
have been considered by the previous committee.
So recommendations relating to the local plan
and the adoption of the local plan,
considering reports updates to conservation areas,
and on the parking side, agreeing the parking work
program, confirming TROs, and things like that as well.
And in terms of the format of the meetings,
so meetings are scheduled.
They'll be held throughout the year when there's
sufficient business to do so.
And this will vary depending on how the reports progress,
how the items progress.
And there are some regular items, certainly
on the planning policy side, as well as
some items that will reach key milestones
and then will come before the committee.
And generally, assistant directors, directors,
and senior managers will be here to present the items,
as well as respond to any queries and questions.
So we're here to support you and facilitate the meeting.
Thanks.
Thank you, Chris.
Just before we move on to the main agenda item number six,
just welcome the two new councillors,
Councillor Hobbs and Councillor Gilbert to the panel.
I know you guys haven't sat on the panel before.
I think every one of us here, other than that,
have all sat on the panel.
And thank you, Councillor Thorp, for chairing this panel
last year.
Councillor Gilbert does have a special request
for the panel tonight.
And that is can no one mention the result of the football
because he hasn't seen it yet.
So if we could all keep that one to ourselves, thank you.
Moving on to item number six, biodiversity net gain, BNG,
an update on the introduction of mandatory BNG
and the Welland-Hattfield guidance notes.
For this, I'm going to hand over to my second person
on my right, Matt Wilson, to talk us through this item.
Good evening, councillors.
My name is Matthew Wilson.
I'm the planning policy manager.
The first of my two items this evening
is in relation to biodiversity net gain.
Biodiversity net gain is a way of creating and improving
biodiversity by requiring development
to have a positive impact net gain on biodiversity.
In order to assist applicants and decision makers,
a biodiversity net gain guidance note
was reported to this panel and then endorsed by cabinet
on the 5th of September, 2023.
At that time, the local plan had not yet been adopted.
And secondary legislation and government guidance
was still awaited to clarify how the requirement
for mandatory BNG would be applied in practice.
Following some delays, biodiversity net gain
is now a mandatory requirement for qualifying development
in England.
There is now an extensive collection of national guidance
and tools on the implementation of BNG.
Since it's become mandatory, there
have also been various updates to that guidance.
The mandatory BNG now takes precedence over local policy.
As consequence, part of our local plan policy, SADM 16,
has been superseded by the statutory framework.
In addition, national guidance states
that plan makers do not need to duplicate
the detailed provisions of the statutory framework,
and it will be inappropriate for plans and supplementary
planning documents to include policies or guidance which
are incompatible with the framework.
The Welland Hatfield BNG guidance note
is now not considered to be necessary,
as there is now the statutory framework and associated
national guidance.
It is no longer necessary or appropriate
to take the Welland Hatfield BNG guidance note
into account in decision making for planning applications.
Going forward, as the report sets out,
as part of the local plan review,
consideration will be given to how the statutory framework can
be complemented.
Any percentage higher than 10% must be evidence and justified
and capable of implementation and is
something we can explore as we look at our local plan review.
The recommendation of this item is set out in paragraph 2.1.
Thank you.
Thank you, Matt.
I'm going to open the floor up to questions.
First of all, Sunny, thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
Apologies to members.
I've actually got a number of questions.
Mostly, they'll probably be yes, no, or we don't know.
You surprise me.
2.2, you say that the panel needs to unanimously agree.
I assume you mean a majority will be fine.
So that relates to whether or not
the item has gone to cabinet or whether an exempt member
decision notice can be used to confirm the decision.
So if it's unanimous here, then an EMDN exempt member decision
can be used.
If it's not unanimous here, then it
goes to cabinet for cabinet to determine.
OK.
I'm sure it'll be unanimous.
3.7, any reason for why there was a delay?
I don't actually know the answer to that question.
There has been a lot of guidance,
a lot of technical information put out there.
It has moved back the introduction of mandatory BNG
on a couple of occasions.
It is a big change for the development industry.
But ultimately, I don't know the exact reasons
why nationally it was put back, I am afraid.
A few more, sorry.
3.11, what is exempt?
Some development is exempt from this, what is the exception?
So examples would be householder planning applications,
that scale of development.
So it's the smaller scale applications
where it would be a burden that wouldn't be reasonable to add.
And in the same paragraph, it says
that you need a net gain of 10% per large development.
How would that actually be done?
And could you give us an example of that?
Only because if you've got a bit of greenery,
you're going to add flats to it, that's a certain footage.
So would that footage increase, say it's like three floors,
so there's three bits of footage,
do you have to then 10% add to that footage?
So what developers need to do before they redevelop
their site is they need to establish
what the baseline situation for biodiversity
is at the site at the start.
It's 10% over and above the baseline.
And the way in which that's calculated is through a fairly
complex metric that the government has designed
with essentially points making prizes.
So different levels of gain being related
to different types of habitats.
So it will very much depend on the local circumstances.
It may be that in some parts of Arbora, for example,
there's a priority for a certain type of habitat,
and that can be achieved on some sites, but not on others.
So each case really will be individual,
but really will be a part of that.
It will be individual, but really it's achieving
that uplift over the baseline that your site starts with.
So if your site is a rolling grassed field
that has lots of invertebrates and other things on it,
then it's going to be a challenge.
But in theory, at least it should be achievable
still to achieve that gain.
If you can't, then there's obviously an issue
for planning to consider there.
- So does that mean that in 10 years time,
we would have more biodiversity than we actually have now?
- That's the objective.
- Okay, interesting.
Small point, 5.1, financial implications.
I assume there's no financial implications
to the borough council,
but there may well be financial implications to planners.
- So for the local planning authority,
no, the burden of this is on the developer.
There's, I suppose, a minor administrative burden for us
in terms of how it's monitored and things like that,
but that should be addressed through existing resources.
It's probably a slightly different question
for another form of the borough council as a developer,
but the borough council would be required
to comply in the same way as any other developer.
- Okay, final last question was,
this sounds like something that the climate committee
would probably want to be involved in or monitor.
Is that something that will happen further down the line?
- Sorry, jumping in here, but yeah,
I think certainly through the local plan review,
there'll be an opportunity for potentially involving
that committee as well because the reviewed local plan
will obviously be looking at all sorts
of climate change related policies,
environmental policies that I'm sure lots of people
will want to review.
So I think the purpose of this report is really to say,
we had our interim guidance, we don't need it anymore
because it's been overtaken by national guidance,
but as we start the local plan review,
then there'll be lots more work to do for sure.
- Thank you.
Thank you, sir.
- Anyone else have any questions they'd like to ask?
I have one.
At 3.17 in the appendix, it speaks about
that we can under our local plan review,
look at perhaps having a higher percentage
than the national policy should we so wish
whether we do or not, remains to be seen.
A question, should Welland Hatfield Borough Council do so
and say have 15 or 20% as a local policy,
could a developer subsequently challenge that and say,
well, actually national policy says 10's enough,
you're saying 20% is enough and then perhaps appeal
against us being unreasonably high perhaps?
- It would be something that they would look
to probably challenge us on through the local plan process.
So in terms of the consultations that we would have
on a new local plan, so say we would want to introduce
a higher percentage, developers could make representations
and seek to challenge it then.
But actually, once it is hopefully within
an adopted local plan, that is part of our development plan
and it needs to be considered as part of,
well, when planning assessments are assessed.
So it would be something through the local plan
preparation stage that people would probably
look to challenge us.
- Thank you.
Councillor Kingsbury.
- Yeah, just following on from Russ's question there,
obviously in appendix one, there's comments against a motion
that was went to council in October last year.
So that seems to set out what you just said
that we talked about a higher percentage,
but that will be addressed in what you just said there.
And some of the other issues picked up
in a review of the local plan, is that correct?
- It is, yes, in terms of obviously the local plan
is a tool and an opportunity to do more.
And obviously the other parts of that particular motion
was in relation to obviously things have moved on
in the terms of the guidance at a national level now.
- Yes, Councillor Quinton.
- Just on the same subject, I notice in 3.18,
the guidance says that plan makers should not seek
a higher percentage in the statutory 10%.
Does that mean that our local plan could be designed
to have a justification for more than 10%?
- It is exactly that.
We are starting conversations with some authorities
who are a little bit ahead of us with their local plan.
So I believe it is Enfield are at their regulation 19
stage, so at quite an advanced stage.
And they are looking to introduce,
I believe a 20% requirement.
So we have arranged a meeting as a planning policy team
to find out more about that and how they have evidenced it.
- Anyone else?
No.
Okay, in that case, can I ask the panel
to note the introduction of mandatory biodiversity net gain
and recommend to cabinet that the Welling Hatfield BNG
guidance note should no longer be a material consideration
in decision making where a biodiversity net gain
requirement applies.
And if this is unanimous, for the decision to be taken
by the executive member using their delegated powers
under paragraph 18.1B of the cabinet procedural rules.
If you could vote with a show of hands, please.
I think that's everyone Roxanne.
Thank you very much indeed.
Okay, moving on to item number seven,
housing delivery test action plan 2024.
Back over to you, Matt, for this one, thank you.
- Thank you.
So the housing delivery test is an annual measure
of the delivery of housing in a local authority area.
It's compares the total net homes delivered
against the number of homes required
over a rolling three year period.
The government published the 2022 housing delivery test
result in December, 2023.
The results indicated that Welling Hatfield delivered
65% of homes against its target for the three year period.
That equates to 1,283 homes delivered over the three years
against the 1,971 required.
This result means that the council is required
to again produce an action plan,
looking at causes of under delivery
and actions to improve delivery in future years.
The last action plan published by this council
was in October, 2022.
In addition to producing an action plan,
as delivery is still below 75%,
the council is required to continue to apply
the presumption in favor of sustainable development
when determining planning applications.
The action plan looks at factors
which may impact housing delivery,
such as local plan sites progress,
planning performance in terms of speed of determination
of applications, as well as the council's own efforts
to improve housing supply through its own housing schemes.
Some of the key actions are to determine applications
for local plan housing sites allocations
as fast as reasonably possible,
where planning applications for local plans site allocations
have not yet been received,
writing to landowners and developers,
inviting initial discussions and/or
to understand any delays in sites coming forward.
Progress with the implementation
of the community infrastructure levy, CIL,
amendments to the structure
of the development management service
to be more responsive to the progression
of the largest and most significant planning applications.
The action plan notes that it may be some time
before any improvement in the housing delivery test result
is recorded.
This is because the housing delivery test
is a retrospective rolling three a year calculation
in addition to the lead-in time between planning permission
being granted and completions on sites
is generally two to three years.
Therefore, even with more housing sites
being granted planning permission,
the shortfall is expected to continue you in the short term.
Paragraph 2.1 sets out this paper's recommendation.
Thank you.
- Thank you, Matt.
And I'd like to open this up to the councilors
for comments and questions.
Yes, Jill.
- Yes, it's about the mention of presumption
in favor of sustainable development
when determining planning applications for housing schemes.
Can you describe how we apply that presumption in favor?
How do we approach the developers?
What do we require of them
to pass the sustainable development test?
Thank you.
- So essentially what it means is that
we need to consider the delivery of houses.
So the under supply of houses
when we do the balancing exercise.
So all planning decisions are a balancing exercise.
And we need to factor into that,
we haven't been achieving the number of homes
delivered against our target.
It is a factor which is put in
to the balancing exercise essentially.
It's not like that.
It's not about the specifics of a scheme
in terms of any sustainable measurements.
So for example, solar panels,
it is more about the overall
and having to factor the under supply
within our decision making.
- Lucy.
- Thank you.
Just looking through the numbers where it's missed
and the dates it's missed,
the higher proportion looks like it was missed
between 2021 and 21/22
when obviously we were still impacted by the COVID-19
and the fallout from there.
Is that one of the reasons for some of the misses?
And does that tally up to what other councils have?
Are we in a similar position to other councils?
- Yeah, it is actually a multitude of reasons
to be honest with you.
The largest one is actually
because we've only just recently adopted a local plan.
So we've been having to deliver a very high number
but we haven't had the housing sites
because we haven't had the adopted local plan.
So that's principally the main reason.
There are other reasons impacting delivery as well.
So things like the pandemic,
there are other factors in there as well.
So in the terms of just actually
when developers want to bring forward sites as well.
So it is a multitude of reasons
but obviously the action plan is looking ahead
in the terms of putting in place the measures
to increase our delivery.
And a key one of them is actually
now that we have a local plan
expecting those sites to actually come forward
and deliver against the local plans housing target.
- Sorry, and where are we
with regards to other councils as well?
Just because of the.
- Yes, so in the terms of other councils,
I do have their housing delivery test results
in front of me.
So in the terms of our immediate neighbors,
Hart's, so they were, their HDT result was 69.
So obviously Broxbourne was lower than ours at 57.
The only ones in Hertfordshire
that were actually delivering over their target
was actually North Hart's and East Hart's.
Everybody else was sort of on par with us or slightly below.
We're certainly not unique
in having to prepare an action plan.
- Sunny.
- Thank you, as you imagine a few questions.
Just touching on what you said before
in terms of sustainability, am I not to understand
that new builds are required to have EV charging?
- So there are requirements under the building regulations,
which obviously differ to the planning system.
In fact, the building regulations are going further
than most councils local plans at the moment
because they can be amended more easily.
But yeah, I believe that is a requirement
under building regulations.
Our local plan doesn't have that requirement
on a plot by plot basis.
Again, that's something they've,
I mean, bearing in mind that the newly adopted local plan
was obviously written quite some time ago.
That's why a review and updating
of many of those types of policies is important.
- Okay.
Would you mind reminding us what the new NPPF is?
'Cause obviously the local plan,
one of the reasons why we wanted to really get it through
is 'cause we didn't want the new one to apply to us,
which would add, I believe 20% more.
So what, in three years time or two years time
when we're supposed to do a review of the new planning,
would you mind remind us what the NPPF is going to be set?
- So the new NPPF talks about a standard method
for calculating your housing need.
In fact, that came in, the standard method came in,
probably gonna get this 2016, no, yeah, two, 2016.
So from 2016 onwards, anybody starting their new local plan
has to look in the table essentially
for their starting point.
They look up their local authority
and they are told what their housing number is.
And that is the starting point.
Obviously with our now adopted local plan,
we were using an old NPPF, the one from 2012,
as you might recall me mentioning.
And that was a different way of calculating the need.
So our need is less because, so in the local plan,
our need, our annual need is less than what it is
if you look in the table for the standard method number.
- Just to add to that, paragraph 3.4 in the report
obviously talks about the latest iteration of the NPPF
that came out in December last year.
And that affords us as a local authority
who's recently adopted a local plan,
protection from the requirement
to demonstrate a five-year land supply.
But what it doesn't do is give us protection
against the presumption in favor of sustainable development
because of the failure of the housing delivery test.
One's a forward-looking test,
one's a back-looking test, one's a best term.
So that was one of the changes to the NPPF
in December last year.
In terms of the new plan,
I think obviously we need to see what happens
in a couple of weeks' time
and any subsequent changes that might be made
by any new government to the NPPF
when it comes to plan-making
and we'll need to respond to that
given we're at the very early stages,
we're in a position to do that still.
- But to counter that, when we had a DMC,
not meeting, but new councilors and thingy,
one of the things the gentleman who said,
who was an expert, said,
Actually, even if a new government were to start,
in terms of statutory requirements
would take several years.
So what you're saying is you're thinking about it,
what will happen, then they might put something,
but that will take several years to come.
So we would probably still have to do it on the NPPF now,
I set out in 2016.
- Yeah, so yes, you're right,
you did say that in the training.
There's so far that a government can go
by changing the NPPF, that will set,
if they do that, a new government,
that will set a clear direction of travel
and most local authorities would then seek to follow that,
anticipating that there's unlikely to be
further change in direction, at least, over that time.
If there are changes that require legislation,
then that will inevitably take longer.
But the Leveling Up and Regeneration Act, as it now is,
already sets the framework for secondary legislation
to be introduced, and that will be available
to a new government as well,
to introduce secondary legislation,
which may set a different course for local plan-making,
but that indication will come earlier
through changes to the NPPF.
You'll recall that the latest changes
that were made in December certainly gave
some authorities the impression
that they could significantly reduce their housing targets.
If we have a change of government,
then that may change again.
So that's where you'll get that first indication.
- Okay, and just a final sort of comment,
rather than anything else.
I read this on the way into work and out of work,
and I couldn't quite work out whether we were being told off
or being congratulated, and it was a kind of an odd one,
because, look, the local plan, whatever its pros and cons,
is delivering a lot of homes.
We are in a different economic environment,
you know, in terms of getting bank loans and mortgages,
and post-COVID, the requirements
of between flats and homes are kind of different.
And we have a very large development, shredded wheat,
in which a developer has actually has pulled out.
Ultimately, we may be asked to build more houses
because there is more housing need.
And yet, I think we've delivered quite a lot already.
We'll be asked to deliver more, but at what expense?
And we already had the biodiversity question beforehand.
I mean, that puts a massive burden on developers.
So just as a sort of a conclusion,
what, say we all had a, you know,
we all had a Kumbaya moment,
we agreed on whatever numbers you said we should have,
and we will say,
Yeah, yeah, build those.
Is it actually buildable?
Is it actually a viable thing that we can deliver
on our housing needs, or suppose it has,
which is always less than what they think we should do,
housing needs in terms of what the council wants to build,
and all the commitments we have made for biodiversity
and sustainability, and dare I say the word infrastructure,
'cause we always have that argument,
and apparently we're not allowed
to talk about infrastructure,
because it doesn't matter,
you build, they will come sort of policy.
So if you were to put your sort of slight negative hat on,
where do you see actually going in the next three,
four years if the economic situation is kind of the same
and what we already are seeing
with developers not actually building or giving back sites
or selling them on,
is the risk of any housing numbers being put forward?
- So I think the way I'd answer that question is
by just reconfirming that this is a test of delivery,
so have they physically been delivered?
We've got a local plan adopted now
which has some significant numbers in it,
but not many of those have been physically delivered yet,
and that's the purpose of this test.
I suppose just commenting on the direction of travel,
the indication on the vast majority of sites
that are now allocated in our plan
is that developers are ready to bring those forward,
and that's reflected in the discussions
that we're having through the planning service
on master planning and pre-application advice
across the piece.
I think the week quarter is a slightly different kettle
of fish in that it is a more complex site to develop,
given its brownfield nature.
There were certainly some issues
for the previous owner of the north site,
which ended with them going into receivership.
There is now a new owner who is, again, engaged with us
on a new scheme that they're looking to bring forward,
and they'll be looking to come in front of members informally
in the not-too-distant future to discuss that.
So I think all we can work with really now
is the indications that we're getting
from the development industry that is notwithstanding
a 30% increase in build costs
and all the difficulties that you've highlighted.
They're still keen to deliver those sites
and well on Hatfield, I think,
because there is still that pent-up demand
that took some time to be met through policy
with the adoption of the plan,
but at the moment they seem keen still.
I'm sort of almost a follow-up to what Sunny just asked.
I mean, when I look at 7.1 in the appendix,
the actual sites that the council themselves
or ourselves have delivered,
it's actually a reasonably decent percentage
over the last sort of three years
of developments and numbers actually have been delivered.
How does a council translate that to developers
and actually say, oi, get on with it.
You've had these plans approved.
You've got the numbers in your application.
Please get on with it, not necessarily the week-old,
'cause that is a complicated one,
but as a general, I know there's sort of some legislation
that says you've got to start within three years,
but there seems to be all sorts of ways
to get around these things.
How as a council can we sort of push, cajole,
force developers to actually get on with things?
- So one of the ways that that's set out in the action plan
is through us writing to those developers
who aren't currently engaged with us on Pre-App.
One of the other ways we've been looking
to try and address that is with some changes
within the development management service as well,
to have a team that's more focused on delivering
and helping to deliver these larger schemes,
which need a bit more experience and almost
like a team approach, given the complexity of some of them.
So that's a couple of ways.
I think the council schemes, yes, it's really good
to highlight that those have been delivered.
I think without exception, they were all on Brownfield sites
that weren't waiting for allocations in a local plan.
So in that sense, they could come forward already
because they were in urban areas and weren't waiting
to be, for example, removed from the Greenbelt
as some of our larger strategic sites have been.
- Yes, apologies.
Honestly, last one, you can go watch the football.
If we take the Pantanga Airfield site,
I believe, and I look over to Councillor Quinson,
it was approved many, many years ago,
probably two cycles of council before, four or five years.
- The first approval was 2019.
2019, they didn't build anything knowing full well
that a local plan and our pressures to build more houses
would come forward.
They've now, we've now increased, I think it was from 500
to nearly 800 or something.
What is to say that developers one hour will say,
okay, well, they've got a new NPPF.
They've got to deliver more housing based on the fact
that actually percentage wise, they're not meeting it.
And they will then withhold any actual building
for another three years so they can add another extra 15,
20% to whatever they already hold now.
- I mean, I think that's quite an unlikely scenario
given the demand.
Pantanga is a site that Holmes England
have subsequently bought and are now accelerating,
say they're accelerating delivery on with the appointment
of Bellway as the development partner.
And that is now pushing on through
the development management process,
design coding, et cetera.
I think that developers and landowners
had been waiting quite a while for the allocations
that they've now got.
So I think they're incentivized to deliver those.
And through a local plan review,
we'll inevitably be having to consider
whether or not there are additional sites as well
that we need to bring forward.
But I don't think that will stop these sites,
generally speaking, coming forward now.
- I've got a couple of quick questions.
I won't keep you long on these ones.
It's sort of on a similar, on 6.1 on the report.
And Matt, or Chris, I don't expect you
to have the answer to this here.
It mentions that 69% of sites are completed in two years
and 89% are completed in three years.
I mean, that's on the number of sites.
And I just wondered if we were to translate that
into number of dwellings,
I think that would actually translate
to probably 10, 15% or something like that.
I don't know the figure and I don't expect you to know that.
But I think it's just a point I'm making there
that maybe the figures saying 89% are delivered
may be slightly skewing what's the reality
of the number of dwellings delivered.
And I think it's probably just an important thing to note.
So I don't expect to know
what the actual number of dwellings delivered is,
but I think it might be good to actually find that out
after the meeting maybe.
- Yes, I do have those numbers in front of me,
but I don't know if they would really be very helpful
if I just read them out because I mean, obviously,
the 69% that is being referred to there is,
well, it equates to like 1267 dwellings.
So, and then the 89% equates to 1550 dwellings.
But I'm quite happy to go away
and put together a paragraph
that might clarify and add in a little bit more
in the terms of being, well,
actually putting in some numbers into that
instead of percentages.
- Yeah, thank you, yeah, that would satisfy me
if everyone thinks that's a good idea.
Yeah, and the second one, it was just a request actually to,
one of the things we talked about in a few places
is the community infrastructure levy sill,
which I think most people will be aware of
is sort of gonna supersede in a way, S106.
I just wonder if you could let the panel know
where we are really on that,
'cause that would help to push forward completion,
what do we call it, the housing delivery.
So if you wouldn't mind, let us know where we are
and when we can expect to see movement on that.
- Was I on, am I on?
I'm on, wonderful, there we are.
I probably was on all of the time.
Anyway, so the community infrastructure levy
is a tool to bring in essentially money
that can be used to help deliver infrastructure.
In the main, it will do a way
with many of the section 106 agreements.
The section 106 agreements can take a very long time
to get in place and that's why we mention
in this action plan about sill being a positive thing
in the terms of delivery, it'll speed things up.
The developers, the landowners,
they will know how much they need to pay.
So, and it is quite a simple tool to use as well.
So we've had some consultation,
it was at the start of the year.
I believe we are to bring an item to this panel in July.
I think it's targeting July as a special item on sill,
which will cover off the consultation
that happened earlier in the year
and set out what those next steps are.
- Thank you, yes, Sonny.
- Yeah, sorry, could you also,
when you send around those new figures and graphs,
could you also send in what the other councils have achieved
in terms of, you ran out of a few,
but we'd like to see what's going on across all of Oxfordshire.
- Anyone else?
No, okay.
So in that case, can I ask the panel to recommend
to cabinet that the housing delivery test action plan
be approved for publication?
And if this is unanimous for the decision to be taken
by the executive member using their delegated powers
under paragraph 18.1B of cabinet procedure rules.
Can I ask for a show of hands, please?
Thank you, you got that, Roxanne?
Thank you.
Thank you, everyone.
Agenda item eight, there was no business of urgency
to warrant immediate consideration.
In which case, I think we have got to the end.
So I will thank you all,
let you go and watch the next football match.
Kieran's on the edge of his seat already.
So thank you all and good night.
(audience chattering)
