Issue - meetings

Motion

Meeting: 25/01/2017 - Council (Item 88)

A period of up to one hour is allocated to consider the motions on notice. This may only be extended with the agreement of the Council.

Minutes:

Members considered the following notice of motion submitted by Councillor L. C. R. Mallett:

“Council notes the current consultation on Local Transport Plan 4 (LTP4). Council is concerned about the validity and rigour of this Plan. Council calls on the CEO to formally respond to the consultation on behalf of the Council expressing these concerns.”

The motion was proposed by Councillor L. C. R. Mallett and seconded by Councillor P. J. Whittaker.

In moving the motion Councillor Mallett referred to the critical importance of the LTP4 document for the future of Bromsgrove District. There was concern that within LTP4 the proposed infrastructure for Bromsgrove was to the east of the town whilst planned development was to the west. In addition there was no reference to a western distributor road presumably because of the likely cost of such a proposal.

In addition it appeared that the most recent information hadn’t been used for the Barham model and that housing sites did not reflect those in the Local Plan. There was concern therefore that the current flaws and problems within the highways infrastructure would be replicated.

Councillor Mallett also expressed concern that the LTP4 only ran until 2023 and this timescale was too short in terms of future housing growth.

During the discussion on this matter the following points were raised:

· There was a lack of sufficient detail in the document to enable proper public consultation;

· Potential impact of pollution due to traffic congestion had not been considered and this would have an impact on planning decisions as the Local Transport Plan was a material consideration;

· There was concern that businesses would be deterred from locating or expanding in Bromsgrove and that the Local Development Plan would not be implemented unless the highways infrastructure plans were fit for purpose;

· It was important to encourage local residents to respond to the LTP4 consultation

Members felt that in view of the views expressed the current consultation on LTP4 should be suspended in order that the issues specific to the District could be addressed. Members wished to engage with the County Council to agree a more constructive way forward.

On being put to the vote the Chairman declared the motion to be carried.