Agenda item

In attendance for this item were:

Worcestershire County Council:

Nigel Hudson, Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy

Emily Barker, Planning Services Manager

Dr Ken Pollock, Cabinet Member with Responsibility (CMR) for Economy and Infrastructure

Hereford and Worcester Chamber of Commerce – Cassie Bray, Director of Business Development

The Panel’s as part of its work programme had requested information about how the Council supported the infrastructure for Worcestershire’s growth and increasing demand for services.

Emily Barker, the Council’s Planning Services Manager had prepared a presentation which included how the Council delivered infrastructure, strategic and planning documents, development across Worcestershire, mitigating development impact, transport, education, waste, broadband, funding, influencing wider infrastructure (water), Worcestershire assessment of infrastructure and areas of opportunity. (The presentation is available on the website: https://worcestershire.moderngov.co.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=388&MId=2777&Ver=4 )

Cllr Rebecca Vale advised that should the discussion refer to development around the A456, she would need to declare a pecuniary interest, and would leave the room, since she owned a farm on land in that area.  The Officers had prepared a presentation and confirmed that this would not refer to land around the A456.

The delivery of infrastructure was essential for housing and economic growth and also placemaking (the multi-faceted approach to the planning, design and management of public spaces). Broadly, the Council’s infrastructure delivery took a proactive approach and aimed to help with traffic congestion and react to Local Plans. The largest current example of a project was the new train station, Worcestershire Parkway. The Council acted as a statutory provider for example in the provision of schools, highways and mitigating flooding.

The Panel was shown key strategic and planning documents and it was stressed that much of the work involved partnership working.

A map was displayed, which set out development across Worcestershire such as existing housing and employment allocations. Wyre Forest was at the most advanced point of planning.

The Officers were asked about the scale of housing development planned, and were advised that looking to 2040, around 60,000 houses were planned and 500,000 Ha of employment land.

When mitigating the impact of development, Officers looked at what needed to be delivered both at a strategic level (for example a link road), to smaller level (such as a small roundabout). There were infrastructure delivery plans for all the district areas.

Examples of transport infrastructure for growth included the Hoobrook Link Road, the walking/cycling bridge across the Southern Link Road, and the Worcestershire Parkway train station.

Regarding education, the Council carried out annual forecasts of need for places from current housing and local Plans. For developments of a large enough size, a further school would be requested. All new primary schools also included nursery provision and other examples of changes to meet demand included a school moving from a two-form entry to a three-form entry or expanding because of growth in the area.

The Chairman pointed out that the majority of Worcestershire schools were now academies and asked how this affected planning. It was explained that where the need for a school to expand was identified, the Council had to ask the school if it wished to do so and would then work with the school to provide the funds. However, if the school did not want to expand then the Council would need to seek alternative provision; this had happened and was a real problem in some areas and also brought challenge for Local Plans, since it could not be assumed that schools would wish to expand.

Waste was one of the easier areas to plan for, and it was confirmed that there was sufficient capacity for up to 60,000 homes up to 2040, and 17 household recycling sites across the county.

Regarding broadband, the Council was not the direct provider, but worked in partnership to provide infrastructure.

It was important to note that funding for infrastructure was for infrastructure needs only and was not a rolling fund. Issues included build costs and viability. Developers were asked to fund various developments but did not fund everything, a problem which was overcome by use of government grants, something which the Council was successful at. However, for schools, developers were pushed, and most were fully funded by them. The planning system was due to change, and the Government had said that for the next round of Local Plans, viability would be considered at plan level.

Regarding influence over the wider infrastructure, for water, the Council had started work with the Environment Agency to pool together information and responsibilities, for example on water quality and shortage. It was important to improve joined up working in order to get things right.

Maps were displayed which assessed current infrastructure and capacity, as well as opportunity, with the idea that the location of development could be influenced in future, and existing assets could be maximised.

A member asked whether work to mitigate the impact of development included buses and cycling, and the Officers explained that bus operators could run services where they wanted to, but these areas were part of the current consultation on passenger transport.

The Chairman praised the information provided and the examples given, although he urged the Council to be even more ambitious, since he was aware of regular complaints from residents in his area around congestion, and lack of infrastructure.

Information about H&W Chamber of Commerce was distributed to the Panel and the Director was thanked for her contribution to the meeting.