Agenda and minutes

Resolved: That all items on the agenda be web-cast.

Apologies had been received from Councillor Springett who arrived late to the meeting and joined for item 8 – National Planning Policy Framework Consultation

Councillor Paine substituted for Councillor Springett until her arrival

Resolved: That the items on the agenda be taken as Urgent Items for the reasons stated in the reports

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

There were none

Resolved:  That all items be taken in public as proposed.

Interviews with:

Steve Goulette, Assistant Director Environment & Regulatory Services;

Councillor Marion Ring, Cabinet Member for the Environment; and

Jeff Kitson, Parking Services Manager

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

Interview with Flo Churchill, Interim Head of Core Strategy

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.

6.30pm to 9.00pm.