Agenda and minutes
PDF 33 KBVenue: Parkside Suite - Parkside. View directions
Contact: Rosemary Cole Sheena Jones
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
apologies for absence Minutes: There were no apologies for absence.
The Leader announced that Councillor R. D. Smith had resigned from the Cabinet. |
|
|
Declarations of Interest To invite Councillors to declare any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests or Other Disclosable Interests they may have in items on the agenda, and to confirm the nature of those interests. Minutes: There were no declarations of interest on this occasion. |
|
|
Minutes: The minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 1st February 2017 were submitted.
RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 1st February 2017 be approved as a correct record.
|
|
|
Council Response to Local Transport Plan No 4 Consultation Additional documents: Minutes: The Cabinet considered a report on the proposed response of the Council to the Worcestershire County Council’s Local Transport Plan No 4 (LTP4). It was noted that the consultation closed formally on 17th March 2017.
Members discussed the report and the proposed response. During the discussion a number of points were highlighted:
· the consultation process itself was felt to have been unsatisfactory as it appeared that there was a lack of public awareness of LTP4 and therefore response levels would be likely to reflect this;
· there was concern regarding the pre-consultation exercise which had taken place between County officers and District Councillors and officers as part of the development of the LTP4. The initial session had been reasonably well attended but had not been particularly successful. Members had lost some confidence in the process and felt that their concerns were not being properly addressed;
· the North East Strategic Transport Schemes (NEST) did not appear to be sufficiently supported by detailed evidence and little heed had been taken of particular areas of the District, such as Hagley. In respect of other areas, such as Rubery, schemes seemed to be ill thought out;
· Bromsgrove Station Car Park was a cause for concern as the level of parking fees were resulting in cars being parked in surrounding roads;
· Members felt that whilst the Bromsgrove District Plan had only recently been formally approved, WCC had been aware for many years of the locations for growth in the District and little account had been taken of these in the LTP4 proposals;
· Overall, Members agreed that the main issue with the LTP4 was the lack of long term vision and strategy. There was concern that there was insufficient “joined up” thinking and that the Plan would not address the needs of Bromsgrove District. There was no evidence based investment strategy to provide for the infrastructure needs over the next 20-30 years.
It was confirmed that whilst the closing date for comments was given as 17th March 2017, this was not a formal timescale. It would be possible for further comments or amendments to be made to the response if this was resolved by Council.
RECOMMENDED: (a) that the contents of the report be noted; and (b) that subject to the proviso in the preamble above, the draft officer response to LTP4 (as attached at Appendix 1 to the report) be approved and submitted to Worcestershire County Council as the formal consultation response.
|
|
|
Council Response to Solihull Local Plan Review Additional documents: Minutes: The Cabinet considered the report on the proposed response to Solihull MBC on the Solihull Draft Local Plan Review consultation.
Members noted the reasons for the early review of the SLP, in particular the need to meet some of the Birmingham housing needs shortfall elsewhere within the Housing Market Area or other nearby areas such as Solihull.
This Council’s response focussed on two aspects: consideration of the housing and employment development targets and site selection in terms of potential impacts on the Bromsgrove District
The need for robust evidence regarding the 2000 dwellings contribution towards the unmet needs arising in the Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area within the SLP was recognised. There would be a need for this evidence to be provided in an open and transparent manner as this would be intensively scrutinised.
In relation to the site selection it was noted that three sites were proposed for allocation which were in relatively close proximity to Bromsgrove.
· Land west of Dickens Heath - 700 dwellings; · Christmas Tree Farm, South of Shirley – 600 dwellings; and · Dog Kennel Lane, East of Dickens Heath – 850 dwellings
There was concern regarding the likelihood of coalescence of settlements and how this complied with Green Belt Policy. In addition there was a lack of evidence regarding the impact of the three allocations on the infrastructure of Bromsgrove in terms of the transport network, education, GP surgeries etc.
It was confirmed that whilst the closing date for comments had been 17th February 2017 and therefore the response had been submitted, this was not a formal timescale and it would be possible for further comments or amendments to be made to the response if this was resolved by Council.
RECOMMENDED: (a) that the contents of the report be noted; (b) that subject to the proviso in the preamble above, the draft officer response to the Solihull Draft Local Plan Review consultation (as attached at Appendix 1 to the report) be approved as the formal consultation response.
|
|
|
Council Response to Worcestershire County Council Minerals Plan Additional documents: Minutes: The Cabinet considered a report on the proposed response of the Council to the Worcestershire County Council’s Minerals Local Plan. It was noted that the consultation closed formally on 8th March 2017.
Members discussed the report and the proposed response. Members noted that there were three “strategic corridors” proposed within Bromsgrove District. These did not take account of the built environment but had been determined by the use of geological data and Landscape Character Types.
It was also noted that the Minerals Local Plan did not at present contain information on how the County Council will work with this Council when assessing proposed development sites within Mineral Resource Consulting Areas.
There was concern that the proposals could “blight” some areas for future development and this needed to be resolved before the Plan could be supported.
It was confirmed that whilst the closing date for comments was given as 8th March 2017, this was not a formal timescale. It would be possible for further comments or amendments to be made to the response if this was resolved by Council.
RECOMMENDED: (a) that the contents of the report be noted; (b) that subject to the proviso in the preamble above, the draft officer response to the Mineral Local Plan (as attached at Appendix 1 to the report) be approved and submitted to Worcestershire County Council as the consultation response.
|
|
|
Financial Monitoring Report 2016/17 Quarter 3 Additional documents:
Minutes: The Cabinet considered the report on the Council’s financial position for Revenue and Capital for the period April – December 2016 (Quarter 3 – 2016/17).
The details contained in the report were noted. The potential changes to Planning Fees and possible Business Rates rebates were discussed.
The Executive Director Finance and Resources reported that it was intended to report the information in a revised way for the following financial year which was to report by exception. This would provide Members with the information in a more useful way and assist in focussing on areas which merited greater discussion.
RESOLVED that the current financial position on Revenue and Capital as detailed in the report be noted.
|