Periodically, Spelthorne Council holds meetings between the political leadership and the Borough’s Residents’ Associations. If you had attended the last one, on 26 October, you will have been struck that the current political leaders of this Borough are very adept at blaming other people for problems they created themselves. Again and again, it happened. At one stage, in response to criticisms from the Associations, our Paramount Chief tried to blame the Associations themselves.

“I feel like you’re putting me on trial for decisions taken by the Council as a whole,” she complained.

Well…er…yes. The buck stops with you, Cllr Sexton. You are the Paramount Chief, after all. You make all the decisions, and your deputy agrees with your every word.

And all the while Little Chief Bateson sat nodding his head dutifully in agreement with her every word.

Cllr Sexton, of course, blames the Ministry for intervening, to stop her withdrawing our Local Plan from the Examination process completely, binning it, and starting again from scratch. At vast unbudgeted expense. (With Cllr Bateson nodding in agreement with these excuses in the background) You can read her (and his) complaints here.

Well, the Minister has replied. No doubt on legal advice, she has dismissed every excuse made by Cllr Sexton, and told her to get on with it.

You can read the Minister’s letter here. (Rachel Maclean was replaced as Housing Minister shortly after this letter. But the intervention in Spelthorne’s plan was by Michael Gove, her Secretary of State, so the letter is official rather than personal.)

You can also read what the Council has agreed needs to happen in response to the Minister’s latest letter, plus all the latest correspondence here.

So, Cllr Sexton’s sole policy – binning the Local Plan – has gone up in smoke.

You can bet you won’t read that in HER Christmas smoke signals this year…

The latest excuse (in a list of previous excuses) for delay at the last Extraordinary Council Meeting, for a further “pause” in the Examinaton in Public of the Local Plan,was:

“Extend the pause in the Examination timetable until the proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework have been published (expected in the autumn) before determining the next steps and take immediate legal advice to confirm the validity of the minister’s directive” 

Well, the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill received Royal Assent yesterday. See https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-laws-to-speed-up-planning-build-homes-and-level-up

And just how is that threat of a Judicial Review of the Minister’s intervention going? Paramount Chief Sexton, two days ago, blamed any delay in taking the Minister to court on the Minister herself: “I am waiting for a reply from the Minister to my letter.”

It doesn’t quite work like that…

To the Council Offices in Knowle Green last evening (25 October) for the first pow-wow between residents’ associations and the new Sexton Paramount Chieftaincy. Sat next to her was her deputy, Little Chief Running Horse.

At one stage the discussion turned to the topic of predatory development – a topic of much interest these days as the Borough flounders with no valid Local Plan, raising the severe risk that sites in the Borough – whether Green Belt of Brownfield, large or small – will be prey to predatory development, or planning-by-appeal.

Little Chief Running Horse said:

“Last week the Planning Committee considered the Running Horse application [where a developer wishes to build a retirement complex on Green Belt – our comment].  I can assure you that the Local Plan has nothing to do with that application.”

We beg to differ, Little Chief. As we and others pointed out last evening, predatory development, or planning-by-appeal, takes place at a higher tribunal, when, if the Borough Planning Committee refuses an application, the developer takes it on Appeal to an Inspector citing the lack of a valid Local Plan, and therefore the inability of the Council to prove a five-year supply of land. It is no use hiding behind the Borough Planning Committee. It hasn’t happened yet for the Running Horse site, but we wouldn’t bet against it.

And the reason we say that is because the developer threatens to do it in their application.

Little Chief, please read the document:

Assessment of Spelthorne’s Five Year Housing Land Supply For Senior Living (Sunbury-On-Thames) Limited

which is publicly available on the Council’s website. This is a document written by one of the developer’s consultants and submitted as part of the application. You will find it illuminating reading, not least the following paragraph 1.3 which we reproduce here for your convenience:

Dear Little Chief, you are a member of the Planning Committee, and should really have read the application documents before making a decision on it. You really need to up your game and provide better answers than you did.

Surrey council threatens to take government to court in deepening local plan row | News | Housing Today

To read the full letter from the Council Leader to the Minister click here

As promised, below is the second follow-up letter from the Minister to the Leader of the Council.

We understand that the Council’s response to this second letter from the Minister will be sent to the Minister tomorrow, and published at the same time.

We also understand that the Minister has now sent a further letter to the Council asking to set out to set out the exceptional circumstances as to why the Direction should be lifted. When we get a copy of it we will post it.

Spelthorne Borough Council leader accuses housing minister Rachel Maclean of ‘chaos and mixed messaging’ over local plan (housingtoday.co.uk)

Never one to use one word where several hundred will do, Cllr Sexton wrote an open letter to the Minister (published on her own political group’s FB page and sent to a select few, very small, and made-to-order residents associations in Staines).

So, take a very deep breath, and read on:

Letter shared by Cllr Joanne Sexton, Leader of Spelthorne Council with SARA Residents Association for open publication in response to the Minister’s letter on the afternoon of the Local Plan council vote:

21 September 2023

Dear Minister Maclean

I write to acknowledge your letter of 14th September 2023, which sets out your reasons for the intervention in our pre-submission unadopted Local Plan.

At the Extraordinary Council Meeting of the 14th September 2023, in accordance with your ministerial direction, the Council did not consider the option of withdrawing our pre-submission unadopted Local Plan. We did resolve to continue the pause in the examination to allow the council time to take legal advice on the implications of your direction and has consequently instructed a King’s Counsel (KC), but also in turn to ensure that our plan has been assessed against the most up to date National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Like most councils, we have been waiting on the updated NPPF since it was promised in May 2023 and there is still no definitive timeline for its publication. Your own Planning Inspectorate has already agreed to pause other examinations (e.g. Mole Valley and Solihull) for exactly this reason. The Council have been preparing our Local Plan through an unprecedented period of instability in the planning system, with major reforms being proposed which seem to change with the wind. The 2017 White Paper “Fixing the broken housing market” which you reference in your letter, was replaced in 2020 with another White Paper setting out a different approach to plan-making. In turn this was replaced with yet another White Paper in 2022 setting out another set of reforms, which are now being progressed through the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill.

As you will be aware, over 60 local planning authorities (as set out in our attachment) have now paused or withdrawn their local plans as a result of this chaos and mixed messaging, and that is just those that have formally declared their position. It is interesting within this context that the Secretary of State chose not to intervene in either the Basildon or Castle Point Local Plans, where both councils have been subject to potential intervention measures since 2017, yet both withdrew their plans last year; Basildon during the local plan examination and Castle Point, just at the point of adopting its “sound” plan. I have attached a list of all those local plans that we are aware of that are over 10 years old, many of which have a worse land supply position than Spelthorne and many of which are only at the early stages of preparing their new plans. It would be useful to understand what you intend to do about those local planning authorities. Thus, can you please confirm that you were mistaken in your latest letter when you stated that “If the council [Spelthorne] withdraws the plan, it would be left with one of the oldest adopted local plans in the country”? If you concede this point, does it follow that you should rescind the intervention or is it your intention to intervene in the other councils with plans older than 2009?

The report from our Critical Friend, who the Council commissioned during the pause in the examination (the report available on our website here) sets out the rationale for all three options we originally were intending to consider last week. The report recommended that we strengthen our approach to place-making, ensuring that we had the right policies and tools to create beautiful places, including Design Codes (where we had received some observations from your former Chief Architect, Andy Von Bradsky) and with greater involvement of our local communities. The changes the Government is introducing both through the existing NPPF and the major planning reforms would allow us to better reflect our vision for the borough, whereas to date the driver has been to meet the government’s housing target at any cost.

I, along with local members, also have a major concern in relation to potential flood risk in Staines which is where over 50% of our new homes are planned to be provided. The Environment Agency still has not agreed a statement of common ground with the Council. This may end up being a key issue of soundness, regardless of any other changes. The Council will be responding in its own time, in its role as local planning authority, for which the Council is seeking its own legal advice.

Our risk assessment concluded that it was worth changing the plan to deliver on the government’s national priorities and address some of the concerns of our local communities, even if this would delay the adoption of the plan. It is surely better to get the right plan in place, not just any plan! The option of withdrawing the plan was included because it was felt that it may actually be more expedient to withdraw the plan and prepare a new Regulation 19 version and resubmit in time to meet the deadline of 30th June 2025, rather than going through a protracted examination process, which will possibly raise soundness issues and even longer delays at a later stage.

On the specifics of your letter, it is surprising to see you use the 2017 White Paper as evidence given that it has been replaced twice since then and has no legal stature. Furthermore, your comments about affordability are also of concern to us. Affordability is a problem in many parts of the country, not just Spelthorne, which has direct commuter links into central London, Heathrow Airport on its doorstep, borders Windsor & Maidenhead, and lies along the river Thames. Adoption of a sound Local Plan is unlikely to change local affordability. However, we are very concerned about the lack of genuinely affordable housing and are aiming to improve this through a revised Local Plan. There is little we can do as a Council to significantly impact on affordability through our LPA role. If this is to be used as criteria for intervention, it could be applied to all South-East council areas without an up-to-date plan.

Another point we wish to make regarding your latest letter, is its entire disparity from the message of your letter dated 18th April 2023, as sent to Kwasi Kwarteng regarding the Riverside Residents (Staines) Coalition (copy attached for your ease of reference). I will specifically point out the following examples:

1. You state in your April letter that “councils should decide on their own housing requirement once they have considered their ability to meet their own needs in their area.” You also stated that “…local authorities can adjust the number of homes planned for to account for local circumstances….” However, in your letter of the 14th September 2023, you state that the council has not performed well against the housing delivery test. You appear to be suggesting in one hand that councils should ultimately be the decision makers, yet in the other hand state that we have under-performed. What if the Council considered their current performance to be what they deemed acceptable and their capacity?

2. You state in your April letter that the policy changes are due later in 2023. Can you please confirm why this has not yet been published and how councils can be expected to finalise and publish their Local Plans when Government policies are so ambiguous.

3. You state in your April letter that “Until that time [NPPF changes come into force] the current national policy remains in force….” You also make several references confirming that councils should make their own decisions on housing. Does this not mean that at least until the update of the NPPF, councils will be in control of their housing? If so, why the current intervention? If not, please justify the disparity between your previous message and the current intervention?

4. You state in your April letter that “We want decisions about homes to be driven locally …” Does this not conflict with your intervention? If you say not, please explain?

5. Your April letter ends with “Given the Department’s [DLUHC] role in the planning system and the need for an examination of a local plan to remain fully independent, we are unable to discuss the details of the said plan.”

So, you are saying that you are unable to discuss the plan, but can unceremoniously intervene and stop the Council deciding their own fate regarding the plan?

Can you please explain the total disparity here?

I also refer to your re-tweet of the post of Guido Fawkes. I attach a screenshot of this for your ease of reference. One could infer from this re-tweet that you are stating that any council that wishes to take control of their skyline or presumably Local Plan are so called “NIMBYS.” Do you believe, in light of the comments you made in your April letter regarding councils taking control, that such authorities are “NIMBYS”?

Our role, as the democratically elected local representatives, is to marry-up national planning policy requirements with those of our communities. Up until now, the council have not been allowed to do this, and just when we feel that the Government is finally on our side and recognising the value of good place-making, delivering beautiful places and with local communities at the heart of the process, our ability to respond has been taken away from us. This is not Localism. This is not local democracy.

Finally, we take issue with the fact that you chose to intervene on the 14th September 2023, less than four hours before the Council were due to take a critical decision on the Local Plan. This is completely unreasonable and unacceptable.

At the very least you could have formally advised us earlier that you were minded to intervene so that we would have had the opportunity to understand and respond to your concerns ahead of the Council meeting.

I would ask that this matter receives your urgent attention as this is a subject of significant importance to the future of Spelthorne.

I would kindly ask for your comprehensive written response to all the highlighted matters raised in this letter as a matter of some urgency. For clarity, please note that this letter has been written by me as Leader of Spelthorne Borough Council and the Spelthorne Independent Group, together with the support of the Deputy Leader of the Council and the majority of members of the Spelthorne Independent Group, Liberal Democrats, Green and Labour parties. The Council will also be communicating with your department separately, in due course, with a more detailed formal response to the exceptional circumstances pertaining to the intervention, once KC advice has been fully considered.

For transparency, this letter is being dispatched as an open letter and copies will be made available to both the Planning Inspector examining our Local Plan, the LGA and to our local residents.

Your sincerely

Cllr Joanne Sexton

Leader of the Council

Group Leader of Spelthorne Independent Group

To read the letter, click here.