Agenda item

A period of up to one hour is allocated to consider the motions on notice.  This may only be extended with the agreement of the Council.

The Chairman advised Members that two Motions on Notice had been submitted for consideration at this meeting.

Council considered the following Motion on Notice that was submitted by Councillor D. Nicholl:

“The Office of the Secretary of State for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) aimed to create sustainable communities. Given the proposal in our draft Development Strategy to build nine thousand extra homes by 2043 across BDC, Bromsgrove District, Council resolves to request that the Leader write to the Deputy Prime Minister to highlight how these figures contradict those which are compatible with a sustainable community and ask for the affordability multiplier under the National Planning Policy Framework be reviewed urgently.”

Prior to consideration of the Motion on Notice, Councillor D. Nicholl explained that he was proposing the original Motion included in the main agenda for this meeting in a slightly altered form of wording. The wording would now read as follows:

“The Office of the Secretary of State for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) aimed to create sustainable communities. Given the proposal in our draft Development Strategy to build nine thousand extra homes by 2043 across Bromsgrove District, Council resolves to ask the Group Leaders to write to the Deputy Prime Minister to highlight how these figures contradict those which are compatible with a sustainable community and ask for the affordability multiplier under the National Planning Policy Framework be reviewed urgently.”

In proposing the Motion, Councillor D. Nicholl explained that the proposal to build nine thousand extra homes within the District was not in line with a sustainable community and would be catastrophic to the residents of Bromsgrove and destroy much of the District.

It was stated that the affordability multiplier used in order to ascertain the number of homes needed to be built by 2043 in the District was flawed. Therefore, it was requested that a letter be sent to the Deputy Prime Minister to request clarification on the affordability multiplier and that a review of the multiplier be undertaken urgently.

The Motion was seconded by Councillor R. Hunter.

Prior to the debate on this Motion, an amendment was suggested by Councillor K. Taylor. The proposal was that the wording be amended as follows:

“The Office of the Secretary of State for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) aimed to create sustainable communities. Given the proposal in our draft Development Strategy to build nine thousand extra homes by 2043 across Bromsgrove District, Council resolves to ask all Members to write to the Deputy Prime Minister to highlight how these figures contradict those which are compatible with a sustainable community and ask for the affordability multiplier under the National Planning Policy Framework be reviewed urgently.”

The amendment was seconded by Councillor S. Webb.

Members commented that ensuring all Members sign a letter to Government might prove difficult to facilitate, particularly with the tight timeframes involved.

During a detailed and robust debate, the following areas were highlighted by Members:

·       The matter of the affordability multiplier had already been discussed during consideration of the Local Plan consultation in June 2025. After robust debate at this meeting, the public consultation had been approved by Members, thus ensuring that decisions would not need to be made centrally by Government.

·       The Council’s responsibility was to ensure that residents had access to good quality housing within the District and the public consultation process was an essential part of Local Plan development to ensure residents’ feedback was taken into account, prior to any final decisions being made. There were currently four thousand people on the housing list, highlighting a pressing need for increased provision of social housing within the District.

·       Members commented that it was difficult for young people who had grown up in Bromsgrove to afford homes within the District and therefore housing developments on Green Belt land were required to ensure that housing was available to those who most needed homes. Some Members expressed the view that this was an unfair representation of the discussions at the Extraordinary Council meeting held in June 2025. The proposed small numbers of houses in certain areas would not affect these areas greatly and impact on residents would be minimal. However, in other areas there would be a greater impact on residents due to the larger numbers of proposed homes to be built.

At this point in the meeting, it was requested that a vote be taken on the amendment to the Motion received from Councillor K. Taylor. On being put to the vote the amendment to the Motion was lost.

In continuing the debate on the substantive Motion, the following areas were discussed in detail:

·       Some Members expressed the view that the narrative around the Draft Development Strategy should be that residents should be encouraged to participate in the consultation process and reminded that no decisions had to date been made. It was the responsibility of Members to communicate this to residents in their Wards.

·       It was accepted that homes needed to be built across Bromsgrove, but at the correct level for the District and the public consultation process would provide this detail. Collaborative working was key to this consultation process, and this could be done through Members working with residents, local organisations and Parish Councils to provide constructive feedback through the consultation process.

·       Some Members confirmed that they were encouraging residents to make a thoughtful submission, including detailed information about transport links, education and health provision, through the public consultation and not through petitions or any other means. However, there was some frustration expressed that there was only one option to be consulted on as part of the Draft Development Strategy.

·       There was a discussion as to whether it was appropriate to debate this Motion whilst the public consultation was still underway. However, Officers advised that this Motion was deemed permissible. In terms of the content of the Motion, it was stated that the matter of the affordability multiplier had already been addressed in the Council’s ‘Response to the Proposed Reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework to Government’, submitted following the Extraordinary Council meeting in September 2024. As part of the Council’s response at Questions seventeen and nineteen in that consultation paper, it was clearly stated that the Council was opposed to increasing the affordability multiplier from zero point two five per cent to zero point six per cent.

·       Members commented that when this response was submitted, the numbers of homes to be built per annum was seven hundred and three. However, following the receipt of the feedback from the Council, appealing the decision on the number, an increase in numbers had been applied by the Government to seven hundred and thirteen homes to be built per annum. Therefore, there were concerns raised that if this Motion was agreed and a letter written to the Deputy Prime Minister, it might result in a further increase rather than a decrease in numbers of homes to be built across the District.

In concluding the debate on this Motion, it was noted that the housing list data on the GOV.UK website currently showed that there were two thousand, three hundred and seventy-five names on the housing list and not four thousand as detailed earlier at the meeting. It was accepted that this figure was too high and that more homes were needed within the District. However, Members expressed the view that a requirement to build nine thousand additional homes was a disproportionate response versus need.

Some Members were disappointed that there had only been one option included in the Draft Development Strategy for public consultation and suggested that a number of options would have been preferable. There were also concerns raised that it was part of the political process to continue to lobby against issues that were not satisfactory for the residents and that this Motion had been designed to do that.

On being put to the vote the Motion was lost.

The Chairman announced that there was seven minutes remaining of the time allocated for consideration of Motions.

A proposal to extend the time limit for half an hour was received from Councillor J. Robinson and seconded by Councillor R. Hunter.

On being put to the vote, the request for an extension for the time to consider the second Motion was lost.

There was a query raised as to whether there would be the opportunity to debate the Motion at the Extraordinary Council meeting due to be held on September 2025. Officers advised that this would not be possible and therefore the Motion would be deferred to the next ordinary meeting of the Council in October 2025.