The following report, written by Cold Ash Parish Councillors outlining a strategy to fight changes to the West Berkshire Local Plan, was presented to Cold Ash Parish Council (CAPC) at its meeting on Tuesday 12.11.2024. Minutes of the meeting will be approved and published following the 10.12.2024 meeting of CAPC.

Proposed way forward to challenge WBC Local Plan

Background

The West Berkshire Local Plan is currently being inspected as part of the Regulation 19 stage of the plan’s development. The Inspector has instructed West Berkshire Council (WBC) to extend the timeframe of the plan. This brings a requirement to identify additional housing to meet the shortfall in the revised target. WBC has responded to the inspector’s instruction by putting forward a number of new sites, including two that are in the Parish of Cold Ash. The sites in question are Henwick Park (CA12) and Regency Park (CA17). Cold Ash Parish Council (CAPC) views the allocation as conflicting with its Neighbourhood Plan, which was adopted in July 2024. Its concerns naturally expand beyond the actual sites as there are strategic issues, and questions for the wider infrastructure, tied up in the new proposals.

CAPC challenged the proposed changes, which are happening without consultation with the community, as it believes that this is inappropriate considering the nature and scope of the changes being proposed. In particular:

The changes represent a significant change of direction from that consulted on at Regulation 18.
The proposed extension of the timeframe for the plan, from ending in 2036 to ending in 2041, introduces the opportunity to consider other site options that may not have been brought forward based on the previous time frame.
The timescales set for West Berkshire Council (WBC) to identify additional dwellings has provided no time for additional consultation. As a result, WBC has developed proposals based on out-of-date HELAA assessments. The proposals may well be unfair to other landowners who may have wished to bring forward proposed sites but have not been invited to do so.
The changes do not appear to have taken any account of the Cold Ash NDP, which was successfully passed by a referendum in May 2024 and was made by WBC in July 2024.
The additional proposals are being made in isolation, without consideration of the wider infrastructure needs nor any sustainability consideration at all.

CAPC is aware that changes to the NPPF are in the process of being developed but these are not due to come into force until December 2024, at the earliest and it is understood that there are no changes planned to the role or weight of NDPs and their policies. CAPC therefore challenged WBC’s approach to the arbitrary selection of additional sites based on out-of-date information, with no public consultation and ignoring the impact of the Cold Ash NDP policies, which are now WBC’s policies since they have been adopted into the current Local Pla.

Whilst CAPC appreciate that each Local Plan process is individual and considered on its own merits, we are aware of another Local Plan that is going through Regulation 19 inspection that has similar challenges to the West Berkshire Local Plan, in terms of not bringing forward adequate sites within the published timeframe. In that case, the inspector provided a series of options for the local authority, who publicly consulted on these and their proposed response to them. Options for moving forward included identifying additional sites to make up the shortfall OR reducing the overall timeframe for the plan to align with the housing numbers identified. CAPC has put the question to the Inspector as to why the second option was not put forward. WBC has given a reason, but CAPC do not accept the rationale and still believe that it is a better option for the people of West Berkshire.

CAPC has requested the opportunity for options to be explored including the commitment for an early review to consider new sites, as opposed to including these now, as this would:

enable other site options to be considered in the new plan; we are aware that both WBC and the local communities have recognised at least three approaches that would meet the requirements of central Government and better meet the needs of local communities;
provide all local landowners with the opportunity to submit further sites for consideration;
enable WBC and other key stakeholders to fully understand, and take into consideration, the changes that are to be made to the NPPF;
enable the time and space for real community engagement and consultation; and
enable a full and appropriate sustainability assessment of the additional impacts of development and the associated local infrastructure needs required to support it. This is an issue that has already been raised by a number of local councils in relation to the proposed North-East Thatcham Development, which is in the same vicinity as the additional sites being proposed.

CAPC has engaged with its District Councillors and MP, Lee Dillon, on the issue. The outcome has been that the LibDem District Councillors have provided justification from WBC Officers on their position, none of which justifies the action nor precludes the exploration of other options, and our LibDem MP who has acknowledged our concerns, but has conveyed that there is “nothing to be done at this stage”. This goes against the Liberal Democrats 2024 manifesto which committed to community-led development and emphasised that “Every vote for the Liberal Democrats is a vote to elect a strong local champion who will fight for a fair deal for you and your community.” It is precisely these promises that inspired many voters to support the Liberal Democrats in the last election. We have escalated our concerns to Ed Davey, Leader of the LibDems.

We are aware that the community that is fighting the inclusion of the Pincent’s Farm site in the Local Plan has received significant support from their Labour MP, which seems to be making a difference.

We have received positive messages of support from our Conservative District Councillor and the Conservative Shadow Lead on Planning. They are both prepared to support our cause.

There are other groups challenging aspects of the Local Plan, as part of the Regulation 19 inspections, the main one being the Thatcham/Bucklebury/Midgham group which is challenging the NE Thatcham development. Whilst we support the views of the group, their focus is different than ours, in that they’re challenging elements of the Local Plan that were included in the Regulation 18 consultation and were submitted with the original plan. The scope of our challenge is different, and we believe we have a better case, since we’re challenging additions to the plan post-consultation, and we have the strength of our NDP to support our case.

Conclusions

Whilst the Inspector did seem to understand the concern that the work on the NDP, which involved thousands of hours effort and thousands of pounds spent, the general indication given in the hearing held on the 2^nd of October was that both the Inspector and West Berkshire Council are already committed to the proposed changes and, so, we do not expect a positive outcome for Cold Ash Parish from the deliberations.

We believe that a major contribution to the problem lies with the advice being given to both the Councillors and, likely, our MP himself from the Senior Legal Officer at West Berkshire. The legal guidance they appear to be following has led them to take an unchallenging and passive approach, allowing the inspector’s decisions to proceed unchecked. We feel this advice is ill-advised and should be re-examined.

From our communications with our District Councillors and MP, we do not believe that we will receive any support for our case from those quarters. We are also not hopeful of receiving a positive response from the Leader of the LibDems.

It is our conclusion, therefore, that we have two options:

Give up and accept whatever the Inspector recommends
Continue to fight for the cause

If we are going to go with option 2, we need to accept that we’ll get little or no support from our LibDem District Councillors or LibDem MP. Therefore, it will be up to CAPC and the local community to fight the case with the support of the Conservative District Councillors. We are also exploring the potential of engaging with ~~the~~ Angela Rayner, the Secretary of State for Planning, to gain her support, as the current local administration is clearly going against the key thrust of her new proposals; that planning should be community led.

We have also concluded that to be successful we would need to utilise all local avenues of communication, mobilise local support, and challenge the Local Plan via a Judicial Review.

Recommendations

We, the sub-group of CAPC actioned with responding to the Local Plan inspection, recommend that we continue to fight to keep the Henwick Park (CA12) and Regency Park (CA17) sites out of the Local Plan that is at stage Regulation 19.

Our aim will be to show that:

the Inspector has overstepped his authority
WBC’s legal advice is unsound
the proposed changes conflict with WBC’s own policies; that is, those adopted via the Cold Ash Neighbourhood Plan
the current approach being adopted has rendered the Regulation 18 consultation on the plan null and void, due to the significant change of direction

If we succeed in making the case we would expect the sites in question to be reassessed alongside other sites, which are widely accepted as being better options for West Berkshire. Whilst this wouldn’t guarantee that the sites would not be selected for development, it would maximise the chance of the best options being selected and would ensure real consultation and community engagement.

Proposed Way Forward

We intend to utilise all viable methods to get our message out to the local community and beyond. This will include the use of social media (Cold Ash Facebook group), parish publications (Parish Magazine and Cold Ash Community Bulletin) and local publications (NWN and Penny Post). We will also leverage all possible influencers (Secretary of State for Planning and Local Conservative District Councillors). Whilst our experience to date indicates little support from the LibDems, at all levels, we should continue to engage with them in the hope that they will recognise our cause and support it.

We do not believe that communication and leveraging key stakeholders alone will deliver the result we’re looking for. Therefore, we believe that we need to challenge the legal basis of the decisions being made. To do this we will need to initiate a Judicial Review. This will require a significant amount of effort from key individuals locally and will incur not insignificant costs.

The specific actions required are:

Develop and implement a communication plan, including:
– Social media (Facebook)
– Parish Communications (Parish Magazine and Community Bulletin)
– NWN adverts and a push for editorials
– Penny Post
– Any other opportunities
Work with other Parish Councils in a similar situation
– Share information and knowledge with the Tilehurst and Pangbourne Parish Councils
Establish an NDP Support Forum
– Contact all bodies in West Berkshire that have or are in the process of developing an NDP
– Establish a series of communication events to share our experience and encourage areas of West Berkshire to support our cause
– Continue to work with our consultant to test our position and receive advice and guidance
Leverage key stakeholders
– Progress our case with the Secretary of State for Planning
– Continue to work with the Conservative District Councillors to challenge WBC
– Work with other local political parties who are prepared to support our cause
Initiate a Judicial Review (JR)
– Explore known funding options, including Crowd Funding and the use of CIL monies
– Continue to explore any other funding options
– Draft a brief for a KC
– Once funding is in place, meet with the KC to initiate the JR
– Once the JR is complete, there will need to be a plan of action to use the results with the right stakeholders and bodies

Notes: We do not intend to formally engage with the Thatcham/Bucklebury/Migham group, which is challenging the NE Thatcham development, as their focus is different, and the weight of their argument is weaker than ours. We will however work with them on any common interests, wherever possible.

Decision Required

CAPC is requested to approve the recommendations and proposed way forward, in particular, the establishment of a Crowd Funding arrangement through CAPC to fund the JR.