A COUNCIL’S housing target, which sees thousands of homes built across the Royal Borough even on Green Belt land, could be reduced as part of a review.
In March, Windsor and Maidenhead Council leader Andrew Johnson (Con: Hurley & Walthams) wrote to Levelling Up Secretary Michael Gove expressing his “frustration” that the government will potentially scrap its national 300,000-a-year housing target just after the adoption of the borough local plan (BLP).
The BLP, which has been controversial among climate and environmental activists, earmarks multiple sites across the Royal Borough for housing to meet its population and economic growth by 2033. It aims to deliver at least 14,240 homes.
Cllr Johnson said they were “paying the price” for adopting the BLP in February 2022 for abiding by government instructions at the time and would have “paused” the examination process, like other local authorities have done, until greater clarity was given.
READ MORE: Windsor & Maidenhead "paying the price" over adopted local plan
He asked Mr Gove if there will be some flexibility to deliver below target in order to put more of an emphasis on placemaking and family housing as well as incorporate new climate and sustainability policies as opposed to delivering homes for the sake of hitting a target.
He did not, however, ask if certain sites, such as the controversial Maidenhead golf course, could be removed as it is now set in stone within the BLP.
The Minister of State for Housing and Planning, Rachel Maclean MP, wrote back to Cllr Johnson stating all local authorities will continue to follow their housing targets as the National Planning Policy Framework, which sets out government planning policies, has not been reformed yet, which could be amended later this year.
She goes on to say that local authorities must review their local plans at least every five years to ‘ensure that policies remain relevant and effectively address the needs of the local community’ as well as take out account ‘changing circumstances affecting the area, or any relevant changes in national policy’.
Cllr Johnson said the minister’s response was “broadly positive” and wants to “immediately review” the BLP once the changes are implemented in order to amend the housing numbers by “a little bit”, although he did not say by how much.
Speaking to the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS), Cllr Johnson said if the changes are made, the minister has offered to have a “meaningful conversation” with the council, which the council leader said he “took it as a win”.
Planning applications for allocated sites, such as the 300 homes site at Spencer’s Farm, have already been submitted and schemes, such as the golf course for 1,800 homes, are yet to be submitted.
The LDRS asked Cllr Johnson if the council should pause the BLP and associated planning applications until the legislation has been implemented and the council, which previously rejected a lowered housing target in 2020, has recalculated its housing figure based on the 2021 census.
READ MORE: Windsor & Maidenhead leader criticised over housing target request
Cllr Johnson said: “Sadly, legally, I don’t think we can do that because we have an adopted local plan in the context of a nationally compliant planning policy framework.
“I think any applicant would take us to the cleaners if we tried to suggest to them that they hang fire on the hope of a change in national legislation.
“I think they would quite rightly commercially say ‘sorry, you have an adopted local plan, and our plan is compliant with national policy, and you can try to delay this but we will take you to appeal’.
“We would lose a lot of money that route.”
He also said some schemes, like the golf course, have submitted or designed their schemes to be under the BLP allocation.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here