| Time: | 7.30pm | Place: | Council Chamber, Council Offices, Gernon Road, Letchworth Garden City |
| PRESENT: | Councillor Mrs L.A. Needham (Chairman), Councillor T.W. Hone (Vice-Chairman), Councillor P.C.W. Burt, Councillor Julian Cunningham, Councillor Jane Gray, Councillor David Levett and Councillor Bernard Lovewell. |
| IN ATTENDANCE: | Chief Executive, Strategic Director of Finance, Policy & Governance, Head of Development and Building Control, Head if Finance, Performance & Asset Management, Strategic Planning & Projects Manager, Principal Strategic Planning Officer, Acting Corporate Legal Manager, Democratic Services Manager and Committee & Member Services Manager. |
| ALSO PRESENT: | Councillors John Booth, John Harris, Steve Jarvis, David Leal-Bennett, M.R.M. Muir and Michael Weeks. 25 members of the public. |
| Meeting attachment |
Agenda front Pages |
| Item | Description/Resolution | Status | Action | |
| PART I | ||||
| 62 |
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillor Tony Hunter. |
Noted | ||
| 63 |
MINUTES Minutes RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meeting of Cabinet held on 23 September 2014 be approved as a true record of the proceedings and signed by the Chairman. |
Agreed | ||
| 64 |
NOTIFICATION OF OTHER BUSINESS There was no notification of other business. |
Noted | ||
| 65 |
CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS (1) The Chairman reminded Members that, in line with the Code of Conduct, any Declarations of Interest needed to be declared immediately prior to the item in question; and (2) The Chairman asked that, for the benefit of any members of the public present at the meeting, Officers announce their name and their designation to the meeting when invited to speak. |
Noted | ||
| 66 |
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The following individuals addressed Cabinet: (a) Mrs Christine Watson (Save Rural Baldock) re: Item 6 - North Hertfordshire Local Plan - Preferred Options Mrs Watson advised that the little town of Baldock had been shaken and stirred. Shaken perhaps by the way the Council had pressed on with such a flawed housing plan. Stirred into action, knowing that residents must work hard to convince councillors of the need to refuse this Draft Plan as it stood. She said it was time for the Council to listen because the community were not going to take the desecration of Baldock lying down. The part of the plan that Save Rural Baldock were particularly concerned about was the proposed overdevelopment of Baldock. Baldock was an attractive, quiet market town with population of around 10,500 and had been singled out to undergo a transformation by wholly unnatural means to a population of about 183% of its current number, nearly double. Worse still, this was to be managed, so they were informed, by the brutal removal of the Green Belt to the north of the town to accommodate 2,800 houses. There were three aspects of this proposal to which Mrs Watson drew to Cabinet's attention: Firstly, the effect of this proposal on the town of Baldock - the town did new need housing. Baldock was a vibrant town. It was a well-adjusted community with good community spirit. It was keen to welcome new people to the town to enable it to grow organically, maintaining its identity, and contributing to the diversity of North Hertfordshire's landscape. It wanted to build on what it already had. However, when Mrs Watson told people she would be addressing Cabinet they asked he to tell Members about the dire effects they believed this huge influx would have on their town. Roads, schools, doctors' appointments, congestion, rail travel would all be adversely affected. But Members would know all this from residents' letters. And over 2,500 people had signed Save Rural Baldock's petition in agreement with this stance. The building of the large edge of town development on Blackhorse Farm would spoil the character of the whole town. It would not necessarily enhance or add prosperity. Secondly, the removal of the Green Belt - this was not just any old Green Belt. This was prime agricultural land, grade 2, tended to by several families of farmers for generations. This was good farmland where British crops were grown for the British market and which could alone sustain the population of Baldock for a year if need be. At least seven families would have to face an uncompromising change in their livelihoods and lifestyles and those of their descendants. The area was part of an ancient expanse known as the Baldock Bowl, which included a henge on the opposite hill in Norton and dated back to the Stone Age. Archaeological information, as yet unexcavated, was still held in the land, including probably Roman and Mediaeval material. This knowledge and inspiration would be lost if it was built upon. It was a haven for wildlife from orchids and other protected wildflowers to eight out of the RSPB's top ten "most wanted" farmland birds, ie. in decline. Grey partridge, skylark, corn bunting, lapwing, yellow wagtail, linnet, yellowhammer and reed bunting were all in serious decline and had played an important part in the delicate local ecosystem for hundreds of years. Mrs Watson referred to what Eric Pickles and Brandon Lewis had championed saying "Councils and local people can now decide where development should - and shouldn't - go." Only today, The Times Newspaper had highlighted a report from Campaign for Rural England which pointed out there was sufficient Brownfield land to build at least 1,000,000 houses in this country. These facts should not be ignored. Thirdly, there was the planning process itself - Is there a definite five year plan? And, if so, which of the building sites in the draft plan for Baldock were in it? The reassessment of housing needs next year meant we probably don't need to even touch the Green Belt to build the five year needs. Why was the Council so set on large developments like the Blackhorse Farm sites instead of spreading them more equitably around the county? It cannot be fair to expect Baldock to take 30% of the total county's new housing? Why were the County Council so set on taking on the burden of accommodating the needs of Luton when the National Planning Policy Framework clearly stated that it should be for mutual benefit (NPPF 178). Is this development all about money? An estimated £174 million for Green Belt, plus Community Infrastructure Levy, plus New Housing Funding? Would that be used to build the necessary infrastructure? Perhaps. But Great Ashby didn't get it and were suffering the consequences. Mrs Watson concluded by stating that Save Rural Baldock did not wish to lose Baldock's green belt to the detriment of its green lungs; or its agricultural heritage; or its health and leisure pursuits; or our ecosystems; or anything else, because they did not believe that this was a necessary development. Over 2,500 people had already signed to agree with this approach. The Group believed that this was the Council taking an easy option to tick boxes. Mrs Watson asked Members to be courageous and creative and reject this housing plan. The Chairman thanked Mrs Watson for her presentation. (b) Councillor John Harris (Baldock East Ward Councillor) re: Item 6 - North Hertfordshire Local Plan - Preferred Options Councillor Harris stated that he was speaking on behalf of the Baldock and District Committee Conservative councillors. Councillor Harris advised that those councillors were interested to hear the decision of the Cabinet on the Preferred Options Plan recommendation, once they had heard the views of the Save Rural Baldock spokesperson, as well as taking into consideration the views of North Herts residents via petitions, letters in the media and other correspondence they had received. The Chairman thanked Councillor Harris for his contribution. (c) Statement from Hitchin Initiative re: Item 7 - Proposed Car Parking Tariff Increases On behalf of the Hitchin Initiative, the Cabinet Chairman read out the following statement: "Hitchin Initiative (HI) thanks the Portfolio Holder for listening to our very real concerns and is delighted that there has been fruitful and genuine partnership working between NHDC and HI to resolve the issues. We look forward to further constructive working between the organisations for the benefit of the communities we serve." (d) Councillor David Leal-Bennett (Chairman of Hitchin Committee) re: Item 7 - Proposed Car Parking Tariff Increases Councillor David Leal-Bennett thanked the Portfolio Holder for Policy, Transport and Green Issues for attending the informal meeting of the Hitchin Committee held on 13 October 2014 to answer questions from Councillors and the public on the proposed Car Parking Tariff increases. He also thanked the Portfolio Holder for extending the consultation period regarding the Tariff increases. Councillor Leal-Bennett welcomed the fact the Council would also be trialling the Hitchin Initiative's proposal of reducing tariffs for the Lairage Car Park. Councillor Leal-Bennett questioned the composition of the inflationary increases to the charges set out in Paragraph 10.2 of the report. He would take this matter up with officers and the Portfolio Holder. Councillor Leal-Bennett concluded by commenting that the Hitchin Initiative and Hitchin residents were pleased to see that the Initiative's proposals had largely been accepted by the Portfolio Holder. The Chairman thanked Councillor Leal-Bennett for his presentation. |
Noted | ||
| 67 |
NORTH HERTFORDSHIRE LOCAL PLAN - PREFERRED OPTIONS Report Amendment Sheet Appendix A Appendix B [Note: Prior to the consideration of this item, the following interests were declared: (1) Councillor T.W. Hone - made a Declarable Interest, in that since June 2013, he had been the nominated representative on the Board of Trustees of the Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation (LGCHF) for Hertfordshire County Council (HCC). During that period, the Board took a decision to make land north of the Grange available to NHDC as being for inclusion as land available for development. At this and any debate at LGCHF on this subject, he declared an interest, listened to the Governor's deliberations, and left the room prior to any vote being taken to recommend to the Board to make the site available. Similarly, when the Board took the final decision, he declared an interest, listened to the Board's deliberations, and left the room prior to any decision being taken. As Deputy Executive Member at HCC, Councillor Hone was involved in the process to make the north of Baldock site available for NHDC to consider - but which sites across the District were ultimately brought forward was a decision for NHDC alone, based on the criteria applied by its Planning Team. He retained an open mind as to the approach NHDC should take and would listen to the consultation responses received. HCC officers had been acting under delegated authority, following this consultation with the executive Member, and would probably continue to do so for some time. Assuming it survived the consultation and enquiry process, it may be some time before any firm decisions were required by HCC Members, particularly as HCC may be looking at other mechanisms for development other than a straight sale. Councillor Hone stated that he was party to the officer briefing and expressed support for the plan to make the land available. (2) Councillor Mrs L.A. Needham - made a Declarable Interest in that she was NHDC's appointed representative on the Board of the LGCHF. At all times when the Board took decisions relating to the land at the North of the Grange she had declared an interest and left the room before deliberations commenced. In terms of the Cabinet meeting, she would be remaining in the room and voting on the matter.] The Portfolio Holder for Planning and Enterprise presented the report of the Strategic Director of Planning, Housing and Enterprise in respect of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan - Preferred Options. The following appendices were submitted with the report: Appendix A - Local Plan Preferred Options Paper; and Appendix B - Proposed amendments to Statement of Community Involvement. The Portfolio Holder for Planning and Enterprise stated that the majority of the recommendations in the report were for Council approval, following the Cabinet's consideration of the matters. The one matter for Cabinet approval were the proposed amendments to the Statement of Community Involvement, as set out in Appendix B to the report. This set out the process for consultation, and he summarised the major changes as: - updating to reflect legislative changes; - clarifying the position with regard to petitions; - updating to provide for the use of social media in expressing opinions; and - advice for councillors on forwarding any correspondence received by the them to the Planning Team if they wished these to be included as part of the consultation process. In terms of the recommendations from Cabinet to Council, the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Enterprise advised that Recommendation (2) referred to approval of the background information relating to the Preferred Options document and Recommendation (4) sought approval for the Head of Development and Planning, in conjunction with the Portfolio Holder, to approve minor amendments and typographical corrections to the documents as may be necessary before the consultation period began. In relation to Recommendation (1), which sought approval to the Local Plan Preferred Options paper, the Portfolio Holder made the following comments: - the Preferred Options paper was not the Final Local Plan. It did not say which sites would be developed, but merely indicated sites which had been made available for possible development, which the Council was seeking the public's views on as Preferred Options; - this was the first stage in preparing the Local Plan - the Council could have proceeded to draft stage, but the Preferred Options Stage provides a further opportunity to consult North Herts communities and receive their views; and - it was acknowledged that the proposals, if implemented, would involve changes to the Green Belt around a number of the District's settlements - but he reminded those present that, for example, Lordship Estate was once Lordship Farm and Grange Estate was once farmland, both of which were formerly in the Green Belt. Cabinet debated the matter, and their comments included: - all Members had received significant amounts of correspondence regarding this matter. The importance of public involvement in the consultation process was stressed, as the Council wanted to receive, and listen to, feedback from the public; - it would not be NHDC that would be building any of the required dwellings. The Preferred Options paper set out the sites where housing could be developed and the underlying reasons why; - the sites may or may not all be included in the Plan, but any building would take place over the 20 year Plan period, and would be subject to the planning process. All development proposals would be judged against the criteria set out in the Plan, in terms of roads, infrastructure and sustainability; - if a Local Plan was not produced, the District would be at greater risk from speculative applications from developers which would be more difficult to resist; - all of the major sites would be subject to Master Plans, which would include infrastructure proposals; - it was clarified that the 12,100 dwellings required over the Plan period referred to North Hertfordshire only. It was estimated that a figure nearer to 100,000 would be required for the whole of Hertfordshire; - any brownfield sites put forward as part of the consultation process would be given serious consideration; and - the Local Plan process required adjoining local authorities to co-operate with each other. The figure of 12,100 dwellings related North Hertfordshire's needs. The unmet needs of Luton were considered in the Preferred Options document, and NHDC was co-operating with Stevenage Borough Council and all other adjoining Councils. In order to clarify a number of points raised during the debate, the Principal Strategic Planning Officer stated: - the figure of 12,100 dwellings had been derived from the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) Household Projections and NHDC's Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) and that reference should be made to the Housing and Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper; - the provision for Luton's unmet needs related only to the 3 adjoining sites in Cockernhoe; and - in terms of the Council's 5 year supply of housing land, should the Plan be approved then a 5 year supply should be achieved by 2017. The Cabinet supported the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Enterprise's proposal that the recommendations be forwarded to Council for approval. RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL: (1) That the Local Plan Preferred Options paper, as set out at Appendix A to the report, be approved for consultation purposes; (2) That the Local Plan Preferred Options paper's supporting evidence studies listed at Paragraph 8.16 of the report, be published alongside the paper, to inform the consultation process; and (3) That delegated authority be given to the Head of Development and Building Control, in conjunction with the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Enterprise, to approve minor amendments and typographical corrections to the documents as may be necessary before the consultation period begins. RESOLVED: That the proposed amendments to the Statement of Community Involvement, as set out at Appendix B to the report, be approved for consultation purposes. REASON FOR DECISION: To allow consultation to be undertaken on the Local Plan Preferred Options paper and Statement of Community Involvement. |
Agreed | ||
| 68 |
PROPOSED CAR PARKING TARIFF INCREASES Report Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3 The Portfolio Holder for Policy, Transport and Green Issues presented the report of the Strategic Director of Planning, Housing and Enterprise in respect of proposed car parking tariff increases. The following appendices were submitted with the report: Appendix 1 - NHDC Proposed Car Parking Tariff Structure for 2014/15; Appendix 2 - Notes of Informal Meeting of Hitchin Committee: 13 October 2014; and Appendix 3 - Extract from Hitchin Initiative Response to NHDC Car Parking Charge Proposals October 2014 and the Hitchin Initiative Alternative Proposals: Submitted 24 October 2014. The Portfolio Holder for Policy, Transport and Green Issues stated that the proposals in the report effectively froze the car park charges for a one hour stay across virtually all the Council-controlled car parks in the District. The Portfolio Holder for Policy, Transport and Green Issues noted the comments made by Councillor Leal-Bennett in respect of the figures contained in Paragraph 10.2 of the report, and agreed to discuss these with officers, if necessary reporting back to him and Cabinet if a problem was encountered. The Portfolio Holder for Policy, Transport and Green Issues stated that, at the current time, the policy for evening and Sunday charging in car parks was not to be implemented. The alternative proposals promoted by Hitchin Initiative, as set out in the report and appendices, had received virtually unanimous public support and he was pleased to commend these to Cabinet. He commented that the effect of the proposals was that 46% of tariffs across the District would remain unchanged. The Portfolio Holder for Policy, Transport and Green Issues advised that it was intended to introduce the revised tariffs on 12 January 2015. He thanked the Hitchin Committee and Hitchin Initiative for the work they had carried out on the revised proposals. The Cabinet supported the proposals set out in the report. RESOLVED: (1) That the proposed tariff increases for the off-street car parks in Hitchin, Letchworth Garden City and Royston, as set out in Option B in Appendix 1 to the report, be adopted; and (2) That the proposed tariff increases be implemented as soon as possible, and that officers, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Policy, Transport & Green Issues, proceed with the implementation as required. REASON FOR DECISION: To increase and implement car parking tariffs in accordance with the Council's inflation policy (for 2014/15 and previous financial years since 2010 where the policy was not applied) as agreed by Full Council on 13 February 2014 in the Council's short and long stay car parks in Hitchin, Letchworth Garden City and Royston. |
Agreed | ||