Meeting documents

Council
Thursday, 20th May, 2010 7.30 pm

  Printer Friendly
 Date: Thursday, 8th April, 2010 Time: 7.30pm Place: Council Chamber, Council Offices, Gernon Road, Letchworth Garden City
 PRESENT: Councillor D. Miller (Chairman), Councillor David Levett (Vice-Chairman), Councillor Mrs A.G. Ashley, Councillor A. Bardett, Councillor D.J. Barnard, Councillor John Bishop, Councillor John Booth, Councillor Tom Brindley, Councillor P.C.W. Burt, Councillor Lee Downie, Councillor Jane Gray, Councillor Fiona Hill, Councillor T.W. Hone, Councillor A.F. Hunter, Councillor S.K. Jarvis, Councillor Sal Jarvis, Councillor David Kearns, Councillor Lorna Kercher, Councillor Joan Kirby, Councillor Marilyn Kirkland, Councillor I.J. Knighton, Councillor Bernard Lovewell, Councillor H.M. Marshall, Councillor Alan Millard, Councillor M.R.M. Muir, Councillor Lawrence Oliver, Councillor Michael Paterson, Councillor Deepak Sangha, Councillor R.L. Shakespeare - Smith, Councillor F.J. Smith, Councillor Martin Stears - Handscomb, Councillor M.E. Weeks and Councillor A.D. Young.
 IN ATTENDANCE: Chief Executive, Strategic Director of Finance, Policy and Governance, Strategic Director of Planning, Housing and Enterprise, Principal Planning Officer, Acting Corporate Legal Manager, Democratic Services Manager and Senior Committee and Member Services Officer.
 ALSO PRESENT: Representatives from Eversheds Solicitors.
16 members of the public.
Item Description/Resolution Status Action
PART I
95 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors David Billing, Judi Billing, Clare Body, Paul Clark, Tricia Cowley, J.M. Cunningham, Melissa Davey, Gary Grindal, R.E. Inwood, Paul Marment, Elliot Needham, Mrs L.A. Needham and Mrs C.P.A. Strong.
 Noted   
96 MINUTES
Data/Council/201005201930/Agenda/Minutes

It was moved by Councillor F.J. Smith, seconded by Councillor T.W. Hone, and

RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 11 February 2010 be approved as a true record and signed by the Chairman.
 Agreed   
97 MINUTES
Data/Council/201005201930/Agenda/Minutes

It was moved by Councillor F.J. Smith, seconded by Councillor T.W. Hone, and

RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 25 February 2010 be approved as a true record and signed by the Chairman.
 Agreed   
98 NOTIFICATION OF OTHER BUSINESS

No additional business was presented for consideration by the Council.
 Noted   
99 CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS

(1) Councillor F.J. Smith

The Chairman announced that Councillor F.J. Smith had recently completed 50 years' service as a District Councillor representing the former Royston Urban District Council and North Hertfordshire District Council. The Chairman paid tribute to Councillor Smith's dedication and service to the electorate of North Hertfordshire over this period, and congratulated him on this achievement.

The Deputy Leader of the Council (Councillor T.W. Hone) echoed the Chairman of the Council's comments, and referred to letters of tribute regarding Councillor Smith's achievement received from Dame Margaret Eaton (Chairman of the Local Government Association), County Councillor Robert Gordon (Leader of Hertfordshire County Council) and David Cameron, MP (National Leader of the Conservative Party).

Further tributes to Councillor Smith were paid by Councillor S.K. Jarvis (Leader of the Opposition and Liberal Democrat Group), Councillor Martin Stears-Handscomb (Leader of the Labour Group) and Councillor David Kearns (former Leader of the Labour Group).

Councillor Smith thanked all of the speakers for their sentiments. He further thanked all Members of the Council and Officers for their support during his time as a District Councillor.

The Chairman invited Councillor Smith to come forward to receive an engraved silver salver as a mark of recognition for his outstanding achievement in serving the people of North Hertfordshire.

(2) Civic Service 2010

The Chairman announced that he looked forward to seeing as many Members as possible at the 2010 Civic Service, which would be held at 3.00pm on Sunday, 18 April 2010 at St. Mary's Church, Hitchin. The Chairman stated that the theme of the Service was young people, and asked that if any Members associated with youth groups wished to send some representatives to attend the service then they should advise him or his Secretary as soon as possible.

(3) Declarations of Interest

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.
 Noted   
100 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

[Prior to the consideration of this item, Councillor Lorna Kercher declared a personal and prejudicial interest in respect Item 9 - Compulsory Purchase Orders - The Wynd, Letchworth Garden City, in view of her role as a Governor and Board Member of Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation. She withdrew from the meeting for the duration of this item and the following 3 items (Minute Nos. 101-103 below)]

The following members of the public addressed the Council in respect Item 9 - Compulsory Purchase Orders - The Wynd, Letchworth Garden City.

(i) Mr Reed (Martins Furniture Shop, Leys Avenue, Letchworth Garden City

Mr Reed stated that he had attended the Letchworth Committee meeting held on 1 March 2010 at which he had advised that the boundary line of the area covered by the CPO was incorrect in relation to his property. Since that meeting, he had been awaiting paperwork from the Heritage Foundation and the Council confirming that the plans had to amended to reflect the correct situation. He had yet to receive the necessary paperwork.

The Chairman thanked Mr Reed for his presentation.

(ii) Mr Ian Poynter (Spinks Properties Ltd.)

Mr Poynter read out the following statement on behalf of his sister, Denise Poynter, a Director of Spinks Properties Ltd, owners of 48-52 Leys Avenue, Letchworth Garden City:

"Following a meeting this Tuesday 6 April 2010 with Mr Simon Ellis, NHDC planning, and Mr Adrian Brace (Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation - LGCHF) in the presence of my surveyor (my solicitor was unable to attend at such short notice) I, as a representative of Spinks Properties Ltd wish to object to the application for a CPO concerning the Wynd development in Letchworth Garden City.

As I understand it, fundamental misrepresentations have occurred in the procurement of the leases between the LGCHF and Spinks Properties (ourselves). With this being the case NHDC would be complicit in proceeding with the endorsement of the CPO on land that includes our leases. It is considered that there is a case of miss selling to be answered and a CPO in any format will constitute blight on our leases. Therefore, I suggest there is a postponement of any decision regarding the CPO.

In explanation, in 2006, we, Spinks Properties (48-52 Leys Avenue) started the renewal of our two 99 year ground rent leases with the LGCHF. We completed our negotiations and signed our two new 99 year ground rent leases in October 2009

Our negotiations over three years included losing a section of land from our original leases; the LGCHF needed this for the redevelopment of the Wynd. That section of land was duly excluded and we were left with depth of 6m from the rear of our building. We have a covering letter regarding the reinstatement of our yard area and the construction of a new fence as part of our lease agreement with the LGCHF. We were never informed that a CPO would be placed on the land within our new lease plan; consequently a very large one off premium was agreed for the leases.

In evidence, there is a contradiction between the plans on our new leases, and the plans submitted to NHDC for planning permission for the Wynd development and subsequently for the CPO plan. This constitutes a legal argument over entitlement.

Despite our objections, a covenant was placed in our new leases stating we would not object to a CPO, on any adjoining or near property required for the development, this clause was limited to the existing plans submitted to us by the LGCHF. But, importantly, this did not include our lease, but, was in relation to any land adjoining us needed for this CPO.

With the understanding that we were not to be subjected to a CPO, Spinks Properties Ltd have been working on plans for the development of residential units on the first floor of the property, since early January 2010. The initial consultation for these proposals started over a year ago with a number of different architects.

Therefore, we were surprised to receive a copy of the CPO plan by NHDC in late January 2010, as well as a form which required completing and returning to Persona associates concerning further details required for a CPO.

In a letter from John Hilson (LCGHF) dated 26.01.10, he states the CPO line has to match the line of the development as per the planning permission, and that this included our leased land. I understand from Simon Ellis that statement is factually incorrect because the LGCHF could have altered the plans, amending them at any time.

Previous to this, I received a letter from Adrian Brace which arrived in December 2009, stating that part of our land would fall within the CPO and that our rights governing sewerage pipes and utility cables would be affected, but this did not mention our new leases. It was assumed that the connection for these services was to be on the land we had given up as part of the deal for renewal, hence the insistence for the covenant not to object to any works adjoining us.

Approximately five weeks ago as a result of the letter received from John Hillson, I met with Simon Ellis. Following our discussion he said we should not be within the CPO because the LGHF had rights of access to the services as landlords. This fact is indeed, vigorously stated, in our new leases and in particularly in a letter from BBW, the LGCHF solicitors.

After a meeting between Simon Ellis and LGCHF, Adrian Brace phoned to say that the CPO line would be moved and our leased land would not be included, thus indicating the acceptance of our argument.

Last week, I made a phone call to both these parties to ask why I had not received written notification, bearing in mind that the NHDC had already had two meetings and a full council meeting was imminent.

Last Thursday (1.4.10), I was told the situation had changed again and the NHDC and LGCHF solicitors were saying the property should remain within the CPO line. In argument to this, both NHDC and LGCHF officers confirmed the area to the rear of the property is not required for development. Our professional advisors also agree with this view, and it is only the lawyers that have now backtracked.

In conclusion, I propose there be a meeting between myself, my professional representatives, Simon Ellis and the LGCHF to discuss the matter further and find a solution. Failing consideration, Spinks Properties may be left with only one alternative, namely the serving of a blight and purchase notice on NHDC."

The Chairman thanked Mr Poynter for his presentation.

(iii) Mr James Whinbourne (representing Patrick's Café, The Wynd, Letchworth Garden City

Mr Whinbourne advised that he worked for a firm of Chartered Surveyors representing three businesses in The Wynd in respect of their proposed re-location. He was concerned that it appeared that there had been no "anchor store" interest in the scheme, and therefore that the area could turn into a "dead" area should the CPO be agreed. He stated that his clients did not wish to hold up the scheme. The potential relocation of one of his clients (Patrick's Café) was currently in the hands of solicitors. He asked that consideration be given to the serving of the Compulsory Purchase Notices on individuals when the timescale for implementing the CPO was more certain.

The Chairman thanked Mr Whinbourne for his presentation.

(iii) Mr David Ames (Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation)

Mr Ames advised that The Wynd formed part of the overall strategy of regeneration in the Town Centre sought by the Council and Heritage Foundation, the first phase of which was nearing completion with the street scene works. The Wynd was the next phase and the planning merits of this development and its importance to the town did not need to be extolled, as detailed planning permission had been granted and a Section 106 agreement completed. This re-development accorded with the adopted Town Centre Strategy, which also made reference to the CPO process.

Mr Ames stated that the Heritage Foundation was committed to the delivery of the scheme. It had already undertaken significant expenditure in obtaining planning permission, the CPO process to date, securing the off-site affordable housing and acquiring the greater proportion of the interests on this site.

Mr Ames commented that, in a letter dated 28 October 2009, the Foundation's Chairman had confirmed the Board of Management's pre-conditions, prior to the commencement of the development. This letter was attached at Appendix 6 to the Officer report. The pre-conditions were: securing an anchor tenant; the acquisition of all interests in the CPO; and the development constituting a sound investment for the town as a whole.

In respect to the anchor tenant, Mr Ames advised that the Foundation's appointed developer and agents were in discussions with interested food store operators and there was interest in this retail space, with a detailed offer being formulated by one operator and other discussions continuing. He referred Members to the indicative programme outlined at Appendix 7 to the Officer report. This was being amended as, although the end dates would not alter, the period of negotiation with the retailer did require an extension of time until the end of June 2010.

Mr Ames was able to confirm that, even in this difficult economic climate, there was anchor store interest on the site. Confirmation of the Council's support for the CPO would further assist in encouraging interest from investors and partners, as this created greater certainty that the development would proceed. In addition, there was initial interest from residential developer partners, although further discussions may be a little premature at this stage.

In respect to land acquisition, Mr Ames explained that the site was under the Foundation's freehold ownership and, as indicated in the report, of the 68 businesses on the site in 2008 only 3 remained to agree relocation offers, but all of these were now in advanced discussions regarding alternative premises and it was hoped that there would be a resolution to each of these.

Mr Ames commented that Members had heard representations from three interested parties, whilst not betraying confidential negotiations, he was able to confirm that Mr Reed's rear service yard was not affected by the development. Temporary access measures whilst works took place had been formulated, details of which were being agreed with the Council before being supplied to Mr Reed.

Mr Ames advised that the Foundation had hoped to remove Spinks Property land from the CPO, but solicitors had advised against this action, which could be explained by a member of the Eversheds team. However, this land would not be taken into ownership by the Foundation, who would abide by the previous commitment to merely resurface the car parking area, the use of which would continue to be under Ms Poynter's control.

In respect to other interests mentioned by Mr Winbourne, Mr Ames stated that the Foundation was working hard to find an amicable resolution with the respective tenants.

Mr Ames advised that there were a number of smaller interests, such as parking spaces, easements or rights of way, which were also being resolved, with no party having an overall loss against their legal rights.

Mr Ames commented that the third pre-condition related to a sound investment; however it should be emphasised that this related to the town as a whole and not solely based on this site. Furthermore, the Foundation was able to take a longer term view on this site, compared to many developers and landowners.

Mr Ames reported that there was a basic financial appraisal associated with the Section 106 agreement prior to the planning application being determined, which showed there being a loss in the scheme viability. However, the Foundation had been advised that economic conditions would improve and next year there was likely to be sufficient reassurance in order for the Foundation to commence works, with an aspiration that the completion of the development would coincide with a better economic climate.

In terms of the financing of the scheme, Members noted that the Foundation had the financial capacity to deliver the scheme, in partnership with a residential developer. However, other methods of funding the development were being investigated, which could include outside sources or partnership agreements with retail, residential or mixed use developers. Closer to the time of the delivery of the development, the most effective method would be determined, which produced the best return and lowest risk to the Foundation, whilst retaining sufficient control over the completed scheme.

Mr Ames commented that the Foundation would continue to work with the Council in securing the CPO of the remaining interests in the site. He considered that significant progress on the delivery of the Wynd scheme had been made to date. These actions would be assisted by progress towards the completion of the CPO, which provided greater certainty to the delivery of the scheme.

The Chairman thanked Mr Ames for his presentation.

The following member of the public addressed the Council in respect of the Churchgate Exhibition:

(iv) Mr Brian Foreman (Churchgate Association of Retailers)

Mr Foreman advised that he had been representing the Churchgate retailers and that, at the last Full council meeting on the Town Centre Redevelopment he had advised that Hammersmatch were intending to go ahead with their agreed refurbishment of the Churchgate Centre. Due to confidentiality, he was unable to reveal the source, but David Payne had since written to all Churchgate retailers as follows:

"We recently obtained planning consent and landlord's consent for refurbishment of the Churchgate Centre and our professional team are currently working up the detail and a programme for the necessary works to be carried out to achieve minimal disturbance to our existing tenants. I would stress that the work is mainly improvements to the Mall. Should any redevelopment occur on the adjacent site this can only be of benefit to existing retailers."

Mr Foreman stated that, in the 8 April 2010 edition of The Comet newspaper, Mike Moult had stated that the £4M refurbishment would go ahead next year, which received unanimous support at the Planning Control Committee meeting. It was also mentioned that all the Churchgate retailers were in favour of the refurbishment.

Mr Foreman commented that if the redevelopment plans were so good, then why did two Hitchin councillors and the Chairman of the Hitchin Committee oppose the motion and abstain respectively? These councillors were known to be very committed to Hitchin and its future.

Mr Foreman advised that this had led to speculation that all was not well. At a meeting in Hitchin Museum which Mr Foreman had instigated between the Churchgate retailers and the then NHDC Finance Officer, the said officer replied after a question that the redevelopment was only just viable. That was back in time when the economy was much stronger.

Mr Foreman asked if Hitchin was threatened with overdevelopment. Would residential development be more important than retail? Rumours were rife in the town. Amongst them were: high buildings would obscure views of St. Mary's Church; the underground car park would be privatised and be expensive to park in; the market, which had just become nationally recognised as market of the year, would be seriously reduced in size and displaced; permanent market stalls would have to be housed in an indoor market or no longer possible; and the river walk would become the preserve of cafes and wine bars.

Mr Foreman stated that concern was such that, on behalf of the Churchgate retailers, he had made a request for the information to be released now under the Freedom of Information Act. "Keep Hitchin Special" had also done this and, in addition, had requested information about the contract with the developer. It had since emerged that information had been leaked to some Hitchin market traders and business interests. If that was so, then the plans were no longer confidential and, now that the contract had been signed, there was no longer any need for secrecy. He considered that it was time to scotch the rumours and put out the plans in the local press.

Mr Foreman felt that, for such a major project, the exhibition time of four days was far too short and could be better located in an empty shop from 10am to 8pm. From experience elsewhere, including Letchworth Garden City, Mr Foreman consider that the recession had made it almost impossible for many retailers, especially independent ones, to survive the redevelopment of a town centre. Business interests should be paramount, and consultation had to take place at every stage of the process. Without a locally based highly experienced professional project leader employed to lead the Team, this was unlikely to happen.

The Chairman thanked Mr Foreman for his presentation.
 Noted   
101 ITEM REFERRED FROM LETCHWORTH COMMITTEE: 1 MARCH 2010 - COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDERS - THE WYND, LETCHWORTH GARDEN CITY
Referral

The Chairman informed the Council that consideration of this referral would take place in conjunction with agenda item number 9 (see Minute 103 below).
 Noted   
102 ITEM REFERRED FROM CABINET - 30 MARCH 2010 - COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDERS - THE WYND, LETCHWORTH GARDEN CITY
Referral

The Chairman informed the Council that consideration of this referral would take place in conjunction with agenda item number 9 (see Minute 103 below).
 Noted   
103 COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDERS - THE WYND, LETCHWORTH GARDEN CITY
Report
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
Appendix 4
Appendix 5
Appendix 6
Appendix 7
Appendix 8
Appendix 9
Appendix 10

[Prior to the consideration of this item, Councillor David Levett declared a personal and prejudicial interest in respect in the matter, in view of his role as a Governor of the Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation. He withdrew from the meeting for the duration of this item.]

The Council considered a report of the Strategic Director of Planning, Housing and Enterprise seeking authorisation for the use of compulsory purchase powers to make and pursue a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) to assist with the land assembly needed to achieve the Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation's scheme for redevelopment of The Wynd, Letchworth Garden City and its adjoining road network. The following appendices were submitted with the report:

Appendix 1 - Order Land Plan;
Appendix 2 - The Scheme Planning Permission, Conservation Area Consent and Section 106 Heads of Terms;
Appendix 3 - In Principle Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) Full Council Report (25.09.08);
Appendix 4 - Draft Statement of Reasons;
Appendix 5 - CPO Timeline and Process;
Appendix 6 - Letter from the Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation's Board Chairman;
Appendix 7 - Anchor Store Delivery Programme;
Appendix 8 - Letter from Discovery Properties;
Appendix 9 - Tenant Relocation Strategy;
Appendix 10 - Letter from Head of Property Management at the Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation.

It was moved by Councillor Tom Brindley, and seconded by Councillor F.J. Smith, that the recommendations in the report be agreed.

In seconding the motion, Councillor F.J. Smith presented the referral from the meeting of Cabinet held on 30 March 2010. Cabinet had supported the recommendation that a CPO be made in respect of The Wynd, Letchworth Garden City.

The Chairman of the Letchworth Committee (Councillor Michael Paterson) presented a referral from the meeting of that Committee held on 1 March 2010. The Letchworth Committee had also supported the recommendation that a CPO be made.

At the Chairman's invitation, one of the representatives from Eversheds Solicitors responded to the questions raised by the public speakers earlier in the meeting. The Council was advised that the Council would seek to use its CPO powers only as a last resort should negotiations for acquisition of the land fail to be agreed. If an area of land included in the Plan accompanying the Order was not required for development then it would not be subject to the provisions of the CPO.

Following debate, an amendment was moved by Councillor Tom Brindley, and seconded by Councillor Lawrence Oliver that Recommendation 17.1 (3) of the report should be amended by the addition of the words "all necessary" so "that the Strategic Director of Planning, Housing and Enterprise and the Corporate Legal Manager and Monitoring Officer, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Transport, be authorised to acquire all necessary land and interests within the boundary of the CPO either by agreement or, subject to the confirmation of the CPO, compulsorily".

Upon being put to the vote, this amendment was carried.

Upon the substantive motion being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED:

(1) That a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) be made (to be known as the North Hertfordshire District Council (the Wynd, Letchworth Garden City) Compulsory Purchase Order 2010) under Section 226(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by section 99 and Schedule 9 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004) for the acquisition of the land known as the Wynd, Letchworth Garden City within the area shown edged red and coloured pink on the Plan attached at Appendix 1 to the report, being land which it thinks, if acquired, will facilitate the carrying out of development, redevelopment or improvement on or in relation to the land, and that such development, redevelopment or improvement is likely to contribute to achieving the promotion and/or improvement of the economic, social and environmental well-being of the area, as described in the report;

(2) That the Strategic Director of Planning, Housing and Enterprise and the Corporate Legal Manager and Monitoring Officer, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Transport, be authorised to

(i) make minor modifications, amendments or deletions to the CPO Plan should this be necessary;

(ii) take all necessary steps to finalise and secure the making, confirmation and implementation of the CPO including (but not limited to) updating the draft Statement of Reasons as deemed appropriate, the publication and service of all notices and the presentation and promotion of the Council's case at any Public Inquiry;

(iii)acquire all necessary land and interests within the boundary of the CPO either by agreement or, subject to the confirmation of the CPO, compulsorily;

(iv) approve agreements with landowners and any objectors to the CPO setting out the terms for the withdrawal of any objection, including where appropriate seeking agreements effecting the delivery of any part of the development and/or making arrangements for the rehousing or relocation of occupiers;

(v) dispose of any land and interests acquired by agreement or compulsorily within the boundary of the CPO to the Foundation in accordance with the terms of the Indemnity Agreement dated 4 December 2008; and

(vi) take all necessary steps to secure all necessary orders to extinguish or divert existing public rights of way and highways necessary to achieve the Wynd redevelopment scheme underpinning the CPO.

REASON FOR DECISION: To assist in progressing the Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation's scheme for redevelopment of The Wynd, Letchworth Garden City.
 Agreed  Strategic Director of Planning/Housing & Enterprise
104 QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS
Report
Additional Report

Local Strategic Partnership (LSP)

In accordance with Standing Order 10.4(a), the following question had been submitted by Councillor Martin Stears-Handscomb to Councillor Mrs C.P. A. Strong (Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Policy and Green Issues):

"Now that the Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) has put forward its initial proposals for the Performance Reward Grant, how will the Council establish:

(1) how the proposals reflect the vision in the Sustainable Communities Strategy;

(2) how the LSP will allocate the funds proposed, for example the Community Pot;

(3) how the expenditure of the funds will be monitored and the work of the LSP scrutinised in future?"

In the absence of the Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Policy and Green Issues, the Leader of the Council (Councillor F.J. Smith) replied that all of the partners in the LSP were responsible for delivering the objectives of the Sustainable Community Strategy, and that each partner needed to be satisfied that the Performance Reward Grant proposals reflected these objectives, including any cross-cutting matters.

The Leader of the Council stated that the allocation of funds was at an early stage, and that more detailed proposals would be submitted to the LSP in Mid May 2010, and then be advised to Cabinet in Mid June 2010. The Head of Policy, Partnerships and Community Development would be providing all Members of the Council with the report on the outline proposals considered by Cabinet on 30 March 2010, together with a more detailed Briefing Note.

In respect of the Community Pot, the Leader of the Council advised that it was likely that there would be a bidding process where local organisations would be able to apply for funding. The Head of Policy, Partnerships and Community Development would monitor the spend and report twice yearly to the Performance, Audit and Review Committee.

Councillor Martin Stears-Handscomb asked the following supplementary question:

"Would the Leader of the Council give an assurance that any future arrangements for Overview and Scrutiny would include scrutiny of the LSP?"

The Leader of the Council replied that it would be one of the matters for the "new" Council to decide following the District Council Elections on 6 May 2010.
 Noted   
105 NOTICE OF MOTIONS
Report
Additional Report

(a) Replacement Trees

Due notice having been given in accordance with Standing Order 11.1, it was moved by Councillor M.R.M. Muir, and seconded by Councillor D.J. Barnard,

"That this Council adopts a policy of replacing any tree felled under planning law, by two standard trees to be planted either on original site or at suitable locations within North Herts after consultation with Ward Members".

Councillor Tom Brindley proposed a revised wording for the motion as follows:

"That this Council encourages developers to replace any tree, felled as a result of development taking place, with two standard trees to be planted either on the original site or at suitable locations within North Hertfordshire."

The mover and seconder of the original motion accepted the revised wording.

Following a full debate, and upon the revised wording being put to the vote, the motion was carried.

(b) Churchgate Exhibition

Due notice having been given in accordance with Standing Order 11.1, it was moved by Councillor Martin Stears-Handscomb, and seconded by Councillor Deepak Sangha,

"That, to ensure that factual information is put forward to the public rather than leaks and rumours, this Council agrees to bring forward its exhibition on the Churchgate redevelopment to April 2010".

Following a full debate, and upon being put to the vote, this motion was lost.
 Noted  Strategic Director of Planning/Housing & Enterprise, Planning Control & Conservation Manager
Published on Monday, 10th May, 2010
Start - 7.30pm
End - 9.30pm