Issue - meetings

The Inspector has completed his examination of the B&NES Core Strategy and has concluded that the submitted Core Strategy can be made sound, subject to a schedule of ‘main modifications’ (Attachment 1).  The Council now needs to decide whether it accepts the Inspector’s recommendations thereby enabling it to formally adopt the Core Strategy.  If the Council does not accept all of the Inspectors’ recommendations, then it cannot adopt the Core Strategy.  There are also a number of minor modifications arising from the Inspector’s modifications needed to ensure consistency and clarity.

The Council considered a report seeking a decision on accepting the Inspector’s recommendations regarding necessary modifications needed to enable adoption of the Core Strategy.  It was noted that, earlier that day, Cabinet had met and commended the proposals to the Council.

On a motion from Councillor Tim Ball, seconded by Councillor Paul  Crossley, it was

RESOLVED

1  To accept the main modifications listed in attachment 1 to the report, which the Inspector considers are needed to make the Plan sound in accordance with section 23 (3) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004;

2  To agree the Minor Modifications listed in Attachment 2 to the B&NES Core Strategy, which are needed to ensure consistency and accuracy in the Plan;

3  To adopt the B&NES Core Strategy (Local Plan Part 1) as modified in (1)  and (2) above  for the purposes of section 38(6) of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act;

4  To agree the B&NES Policies Map is amended in line with (1) and (2) above;

5  To agree that the adopted Supplementary Planning Documents/ Guidance listed in Attachment 3 should supplement the Core Strategy;

6  To note the success this Council has had in recent years in developing on brownfield sites across the Council area and encourage Cabinet to endeavour to maximise development on brownfield sites that are earmarked for housing across the District; and

7  To delegate responsibility to the Divisional Director for Development, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Homes & Planning, to make minor textual amendments to the Core Strategy prior to publication.

[Notes;

a)  The wording underlined in resolution 6 above was proposed by Councillor Katie Hall and accepted by the mover and seconder of the motion.

b)  The motion was carried with 40 Councillors voting for, 21 Councillors voting against and 2 abstentions.  The following Councillors asked to have their vote recorded;

Against the motion; Councillors David Veale, Neil Butters, Cherry Beath, Nigel Roberts, Steve Hedges, Roger Symonds, Geoff Ward, Marie Longstaff, Matthew Blankley, Francine Haeberling

For the motion; Councillor David Dixon

Abstaining; Councillor Nicholas Coombes

Cabinet will be asked to consider the Core Strategy for recommendation to Full Council

David Redgewell (Transport South West) in a statement fully supported the approval of the Core Strategy and urged the Council to upgrade the bus service as part of the Core Strategy.

Robert Hellard (Vice-Chair, South Stoke Parish Council) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 1 and on the Council’s website] asked that the Core Strategy be set aside while a new plan is formed that would save the green surroundings of the City.

Councillor Tim Ball asked if Mr Hellard had understood that if the Core Strategy was not passed, it may be 6-7 years before another plan is brought back. Mr Hellard stated that he did not understand why a simple change in policy would take that long.

Peter Duppa-Miller (Clerk, Combe Hay Parish Council) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 2 and on the Council’s website] put forward the views of Combe Hay Parish Council on the Core Strategy.

Caroline Kay (Chief Executive, Bath Preservation Trust) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 3 and on the Council’s website] stated that the Trust is opposed to the removal from Bath’s green belt of the areas proposed in the Core Strategy.

Mr Elcome-Thorpe (Friends of Breaches Gate Group – East Keynsham) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 4 and on the Council’s website] stated his opposition to the building on green belt land between East Keynsham and Saltford.

Peter Holland (Friends of Breaches Gate Group – East Keynsham) in a statement explained his opposition to the building on green belt land around Breaches Gate where a spirit of place exists.

Councillor Crossley thanked everyone for their statements.

Councillor Tim Ball introduced the item by thanking the speakers, officers, Parish Councillors and members of the public for all the hours of work around the Core Strategy. He pointed to the substantial consultation that had taken place throughout the process. He explained that the Core Strategy must either be adopted or rejected. Regarding the Odd Down and South Stoke areas, he explained that the inspector had given careful consideration to the issue and found this to be the most appropriate solution. He further explained that the Core Strategy is not just about homes but jobs, workplaces, schools and transport and also how we live and bring up our children. He explained the importance of housing Bath’s children in the future. Councillor Ball went on to report that the Core Strategy sought maximum use of brownfield land (80%) and had sought to bring empty properties into use. He explained that the inspector had analysed every detail meticulously.

He moved the proposals.

Councillor Crossley seconded the proposal and explained that the Cabinet were not making the decision on the Core Strategy but deciding on whether to recommend it to full Council. He thanked Simon de Beer and his  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38

The Cabinet Member for Homes & Planning and the Group Manager for Policy & Environment will provide the Panel with a verbal update on this matter prior to its debate at Council later in the week.

The Group Manager for Policy & Environment addressed the Panel. He informed them that the Inspector’s report was now with the Council following his review of the proposed changes and objections received from the public, including local residents and the development industry.

He explained that at its meeting on July 10th the Council must consider the modifications that have now been proposed by Inspector. He added that for the Core Strategy to now progress the Council would need to accept all the modifications.

Mr David Redgewell addressed the Panel. He said that he had supported the adoption of a Core Strategy throughout the process as he firmly believed it was an important document. He also emphasised that alongside the Core Strategy there was a need to have a robust Transport Strategy.

He stated that any subsequent debate on an East of Bath Park & Ride should be non-political and that it should be about finding the best solution to a long standing issue. He called for all parties to be united to move the debate forward.

The Chair replied that she had already raised the matter of analysing the costs, timescales etc. of any scheme with the Cabinet Member for Transport earlier in the meeting and that this would be discussed at a future meeting of the Panel.

Councillor Douglas Nicol commented that he did not think that the political groups were playing games on this matter. He added that a Park & Rail scheme was probably a better solution but that it was probably more expensive.

Councillor Lisa Brett agreed that the strategies of the Council do need to cross over. She asked Mr Redgewell if he was aware of the current discussions between the Council and Network Rail.

Mr Redgewell replied that he was, but said that he wanted to stress that any proposals to create a new station must be done via the proper process with the appropriate studies having been commissioned.

Councillor Douglas Nicol asked if a track was currently available for a Park & Rail scheme.

Mr Redgewell replied that the track that was in place currently was not adequate for stock to be able to turn around.

Councillor Liz Richardson asked if a figure on page 65 of the Inspector’s Recommended Main Modifications was correct. She wondered if under MM133 – 7.05a it should ‘around 13,000 homes’ instead of the printed ’12,700 homes’.

The Group Manager for Policy & Environment said that he would discuss that point with his colleagues.

The Chair asked Councillor Richardson to email the Group Manager for Policy & Environment if she had any other points of clarification to raise.

Councillor Douglas Nicol asked if the density on brownfield sites needed be increased.

The Group Manager for Policy & Environment replied that the Council was already seeking to maximise the density on these sites as much as possible. He added that 80% of the proposed new homes would be built on brownfield sites.

Councillor Roger Symonds asked if discussions were due to take place with Curo regarding  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21

This report sets out an update on the Core Strategy. Following the Examination hearings last year the Inspector issued his preliminary conclusions. In response the Council has undertaken further work and proposed a number of changes to its Submitted Core Strategy agreed at the Council meeting on 4th March. The Proposed Changes to the Core Strategy are subject to public consultation between 26th March and 8th May.

The Policy & Environment Manager introduced this item to the Panel. He explained that around an additional 1,870 dwellings needs to be provided over and above the existing supply. He added that having already maximised opportunities on brownfield sites, and in order to meet the housing need in the most sustainable way, the identification of additional locations, including the release of land from the Green Belt, were necessary.

He informed them that the public consultation on the proposed changes had closed on 8th May and that written comments were still being analysed. He added that all the comments will be passed to the Inspector and that the Core Strategy Examination Hearings are anticipated to resume in summer of 2013.

Councillor Nathan Hartley asked if we had an indication of what % figure the Inspector would agree to with regard to affordable housing.

The Policy & Environment Manager replied that the Inspector had not specified an exact figure, but that it was clear that the Inspector did not support the blanket requirement for all housing sites to provide 35% affordable housing as it did not reflect the evidence of variations in viability across the district.

Councillor Les Kew commented that he agreed that there should be more flexibility across differing sites.

The Chair asked if a higher % of jobs became apparent for the area, would that be allowed.

The Policy & Environment Manager replied that yes it would, provided it didn’t affect the development viability.

The Chair commented that she felt the document was still Bath centric and could give a bit more coverage to historic rural settlements and heritage. She said she was also disappointed that the option of having the Radstock to Frome rail link was not mentioned.

The Chair wished to thank the Policy & Environment Manager and his team for all their work and patience on this matter on behalf of the Panel.