|
MAIDSTONE BOROUGH COUNCIL
MINUTES OF THE Regeneration & Economic Development Overview & Scrutiny Committee meeting held on Monday 5 September 2011 |
|
PRESENT: |
Councillor Burton (Chairman) Councillors Cuming, Paine, Beerling, Black, English, Mrs Joy, Ross, Springett and Newton |
47. The Committee to consider whether all items on the agenda should be web-cast.
Resolved: That all items on the agenda be web-cast.
48. Apologies.
Apologies had been received from Councillor Springett who arrived late to the meeting and joined for item 8 – National Planning Policy Framework Consultation
49. Notification of Substitute Members.
Councillor Paine substituted for Councillor Springett until her arrival
50. Urgent Items
Resolved: That the items on the agenda be taken as Urgent Items for the reasons stated in the reports
51. Notification of Visiting Members.
Councillor Garland attended as a Visiting Member for item 7 – Call-in: Brunswick Street Pay and Display Car Park Disposal
Councillor Paine attended as a Visiting Member for item 8 – National Planning Policy Framework Consultation
52. Disclosures by Members and Officers:
There were none
53. To consider whether any items should be taken in private because of the possible disclosure of exempt information.
Resolved: That all items be taken in public as proposed.
54. URGENT ITEM Call-in: Brunswick Street Pay and Display Car Park Disposal
The Brunswick Street Pay and Display Car Park Disposal decision had been called-in by Councillors Collins and FitzGerald, who were invited to address the Committee to outline their concerns with the decision and reasons for calling it in. Councillor Ring, Cabinet Member for Environment, Steve Goulette, Assistant Director of Environment and Regulatory Services and Jeff Kitson, Parking Services Manager attended to answer questions and provide further information on the decision.
The Committee heard from the Members calling in the decision that their concerns related to the loss of income, the loss of parking spaces for local residents and businesses and that the reasons for the decision were not robust. Concerns were raised over the need for displaced cars to park in College Road which was further away from the area and it was felt that the issue had not been fully assessed. The lack of background and supporting documents was also criticised. The issue of regeneration in the area leading to an increased demand for parking was put forward as a reason to retain the car park.
Officers responded to the initial points raised and informed the Committee that the issue being discussed related to declaring the car park surplus to operational requirements, not to the disposal of the site which would need to be the subject of a future decision by the Cabinet Member for Corporate Services. The income figure provided in the report was the gross income figure so costs of the car park had not been taken off of it. The current Medium Term Financial Strategy had a contingency in place for reduced car parking income. It was stated that Brunswick Street car park was not a clear town centre car park and was therefore not the subject of the parking review for the town centre that would inform the parking strategy.
The figures for Brunswick Street car park were highlighted as 60% average occupancy (minimum of 18% to a maximum of 70%). On average 39 vehicles stayed for 1-3 hours that could park in residents’ bays with another 20-25 vehicles being displaced that could move to College Road or to unrestricted roads.
Concerns were raised that there was not enough information available to determine whether or not the car park was surplus to requirements. The Committee asked if the figures provided by the officers included the unavailable parking bays that were overgrown with vegetation. It was established that there had been several bays that were overgrown but only one was now considered overgrown and was due for cutting back. The Committee felt the important issues were the usage rates by residents and local businesses and asked if more specific figures, including specific streets, could be provided rather than looking at the whole S2 area. Officers reiterated that there was sufficient space in the surrounding area for residents and local businesses to be displaced.
The Committee also raised concerns that the decision might be premature in light of the draft status of the parking strategy though it was understood that this related to town centre car parks. The Committee asked whether any thresholds had been set for when a car park was declared surplus. It was noted that the threshold and considerations for whether a car park was surplus varied from car park to car park and no thresholds had been set.
As the decision related to the declaration of the car park as surplus to operational requirements the Committee was informed that it could not discuss the disposal of the garage and potential for future development that might provide additional parking spaces. The Committee raised strong concerns about only being able to consider one aspect of what it considered to be a complex and important issue especially as they felt the report gave the impression that the garage was part of the decision. As a result it felt that the issue had not been fully considered and requested that additional information needed to be included in any report to the Cabinet Member for Corporate Services on the disposal of the site.
Specifically, the Committee asked for information to be included in the report on the current usage of the car park and the parking requirements compared to the future use and potential for the site so that all issues could be considered together. The Chairman requested that the issue of decisions having to be considered piecemeal due to the order they were taken be looked into by the Overview and Scrutiny Manager to avoid similar problems in the future and in the interest of good scrutiny.
Resolved: That
a) The decision be referred back to the Cabinet Member for Environment with the recommendation that it be reconsidered with additional information on the parking requirements of the streets local to the car park rather than the entire S2 area so that if the Cabinet Member is satisfied from the further information that businesses and residents can be provided for with little or no adverse impact then the decision should stand; and
b) The report to the Cabinet Member for Corporate Services include an evaluation of the current use as a car park against the future use of the site to ensure that the operational issues are considered alongside the options for disposal.
55. URGENT ITEM National Planning Policy Framework Consultation
The Committee considered the Council’s draft response to the Government’s consultation on the National Planning Policy Framework. Flo Churchill, Interim Head of Core Strategy, presented the response to the Committee for consideration and for further comments to feedback to the Leader of the Council when making his formal decision on the response.
The Officer highlighted the key points in the response and read out the specific responses to the consultation questions (Appendix 1 to the report of the Director of Change, Planning and the Environment). One of the main issues raised was the proposed 20% contingency for housing numbers which, in effect, increased the housing target by 1,000 units over the first five years of plan making. It was noted that counsel’s advice had been sought on the figures of 10,080 houses in the Core Strategy consultation and the advice was in agreement with officers and the use of that number. In addition to the response the officer highlighted that only 30% of the country was currently covered by a core strategy and that the proposed policy framework would have a significant impact nationally on plan making.
The Committee considered the response and were concerned about the direction of the National Planning Policy Framework, particularly with regard to the impact of the additional housing numbers compared to the current core strategy figures and proposals. However, there was acceptance that it was better to have a plan than no plan at all.
Clarification was requested, through a future update, on the Council’s situation with the extra 1,000 houses as a result of growth point status compared to the potential 1,000 houses as a result of the framework. It was highlighted that there would be difficulty in accommodating the additional houses and that 1,000 to 2,000 additional houses would be insufficient to provide a Strategic Development Area. The officer stated that planning policy officers would expect to evaluate all options for any additional housing required and it would be premature to consider one option over another at this early stage.
The evidence base proposed in the National Planning Policy Framework was also discussed and concerns were raised that there should not be an over reliance on evidence in the Strategic Housing Land Availability and Strategic Housing Market Assessments as this could over represent the numbers of houses required.
During the discussion the Committee requested that the following changes be made:
a) stronger comments on protecting countryside and noting that there was no specific ability for local authorities to protect large swathes of land; and
b) Change neither agree/disagree to disagree for statement 10a amending the reason to include ‘that the 20% contingency suggested in the framework removes control from local authorities‘
The Committee also asked for a future update on 40% affordable housing provision and whether it was made up of the right type of units with the numbers of flats being turned over to housing associations and requested confirmation on the mandatory code for sustainable homes level required of developments and required by housing associations.
It was noted that whilst the Council was not responding to statement 9a - Minerals directly it had responded to Kent County Council’s (KCC) consultation on Minerals and Waste as KCC was the relevant authority.
Given the importance of the National Planning Policy Framework the Committee felt it was important to send a strong message back to Government that the concerns raised by local authorities needed to be listened to.
Resolved: That
(a) The Leader of the Council be recommended to submit the report and the attached completed Questionnaire as the formal response on behalf of Maidstone Borough Council to the current consultation on the draft National Planning Policy Framework, subject to the following amendments:
i. stronger comments on protecting countryside and noting that there was no specific ability for local authorities to protect large swathes of land; and
ii. Change neither agree/disagree to disagree for statement 10a amending the reason to include ‘that the 20% contingency suggested in the framework removes control from local authorities‘; and
(b) Updates be provided to the Committee on:
i. the Council’s situation with the extra 1,000 houses as a result of growth point status compared to the potential 1,000 houses as a result of the framework;
ii. 40% affordable housing provision and whether it was made up of the right type of units with the numbers of flats being turned over to housing associations; and
iii. the mandatory code for sustainable homes level required of developments and required by housing associations.
56. Duration of Meeting
6.30pm to 9.00pm.