Agenda item - Recommendations from the Cabinet

Agenda item

Recommendations from the Cabinet

The recommendations from the meeting of the Cabinet held on 28th February 2017 were considered at Council on that date.

 

To consider the recommendations from the meeting of the Cabinet held on 1st March 2017

 

·         Council Response to Local Transport Plan No 4 Consultation

·         Council Response to Solihull Local Plan Review

·         Council Response to Worcestershire County Council Minerals Plan

 

 

There were no recommendations from the meeting of the Cabinet held on 22nd March 2017.

 

To consider the recommendations from the meeting of the Cabinet held on 5th April 2017

 

·         ICT Infrastructure Proposals (the background Appendix to the Cabinet report is confidential)

·         Shared Services Business Case for Customer Access and Financial Support (the background papers to this item are confidential)

 

 

(The background papers to the recommendations are contained at the back of the Council Agenda)

Minutes:

Council Response to Local Transport Plan No 4 Consultation

 

The recommendations from the Cabinet in relation to this Council’s response to the Worcestershire County Council’s Local Transport Plan No 4 (LTP4) were proposed by Councillor G. N. Denaro and seconded by Councillor K. J. May.

 

In proposing the recommendations Councillor Denaro referred to a number of recent meetings and workshops which had taken place involving Members and officers from this Council and from the County Council. It had been made clear at these sessions that this Council felt very strongly there was much more to be done to address the very serious transport issues within Bromsgrove. 

 

Councillor Denaro referred specifically to the Council’s response to the LTP4 consultation which focused on the lack of long term vision and strategy for the District. Whilst a series of ad hoc schemes were proposed these did not in themselves provide a coherent transport strategy. Policy BR1 (Bromsgrove Transport Strategy) was felt to be too limited in what it was trying to achieve. Indications had been received from WCC that there could be an alteration in the wording of BR1 to allow for the production of a more overarching and longer term strategy which would consider all modes of transport and would clearly be a key element in the future development of the District.

 

Councillor Denaro also referred to the opportunity for the Strategy to be seen as an opportunity for transport considerations to more strongly influence the decisions on where all future forms of development should take place. The Strategy should play a positive role in addressing the deficiencies in infrastructure rather than merely mitigating the impact of future development.

 

Councillor Denaro raised the need for the development of an evidenced based investment strategy which could be used to secure the necessary infrastructure funding. This strategy needed to be robust and flexible so that it could meet the requirements of a range of central and local government funding regimes over the lifetime of the Plan. The Strategy needed to be fully integrated with other similar strategies being developed in neighbouring areas.

 

Councillor Denaro referred to the work being undertaken by this Council’s Consultants Mott Macdonald in relation to Highways matters, in particular it had been concluded that the existing Barham model was not fit to determine detailed traffic implications. A new approach had been agreed using established methods of traffic assessment. Following the forthcoming elections it was intended to hold early discussions with WCC in order to determine a more permanent way forward.   

 

During the debate the actions which had been taken in engaging Mott MacDonald and in responding to LTP4 issues were welcomed by Members as good examples of addressing problems which were recognised as being crucial to the future of the District and of great concern to residents. 

The view was expressed that whilst it was clear that the Barham model was not fit for purpose, this also applied to LTP4 and Policy BR1 as a whole and that as a stakeholder in the Plan this Council had the opportunity to halt the progress of LTP4 and should do so.  

 

Some Members expressed the view that the series of works proposed along the A38 would not address the real issues and would simply result in traffic problems being transferred from one location to another. In addition LTP4 was not in accordance with the Bromsgrove District Plan and it would be expedient to urge the abandonment by WCC of the process in relation to the current LTP4 and to begin again.

 

Some Members expressed concern that following the demise of the Barham model, Developers submitting planning applications in Bromsgrove were now free to undertake traffic assessment under an alternative model and to submit the results as part of their planning applications. 

 

Councillor L. C. R. Mallett expressed the view that Council should consider calling for a moratorium on the consideration of major planning applications pending the agreement of a suitable transport assessment framework for Bromsgrove District.    

 

The Chairman agreed to an adjournment to enable a way forward to be discussed.

 

Following the adjournment and further debate it was

 

RESOLVED:

 (a)      that in respect of LTP4 a letter be sent to WCC on behalf of all the Group Leaders expressing the Council’s great concern and requesting that the LTP4 process should not proceed until all outstanding issues have been adequately resolved;

(b)       that the Head of Planning and Regeneration clarifies to Members the current framework for processing planning applications in relation to their transport implications and for this framework to be circulated to Members;

(c)        that developers be required to provide full information on their traffic proposals in their planning applications;

(d)       that Mott MacDonald be requested to advise individually on major planning applications and to include consideration of the wider transport implications relating to any other developments whose applications are before the Council:

(e)       that Mott MacDonald or other similar organisation, undertake appropriate traffic counts as necessary in respect of these developments ;

(f)        that the Head of Legal, Equalities and Democratic Services be instructed to make all efforts to recover the Council’s costs associated with (d) an (e) above, including instituting legal proceedings against WCC if necessary.

 

Council Response to Solihull Local Plan Review

 

The recommendations from the Cabinet in relation to the Council’s response in respect of the Solihull Draft Local Plan Review were proposed by Councillor G. N. Denaro and seconded by Councillor K. J. May.

 

In proposing the recommendations Councillor Denaro drew attention to the concerns expressed in the response regarding the need for robust evidence regarding the justification and proportionality of the 2000 dwellings contribution towards meeting the unmet needs arising in the Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area.

 

During the debate some Members expressed the view that the Duty to Co-operate with Birmingham City Council may result in Bromsgrove being required to accommodate a significant amount of Birmingham’s housing needs. The potential impact of this on any review of the Green Belt was also discussed.

 

In response to a query Councillor Denaro undertook to update Members in respect of any meetings between this Council’s officers and representatives of Solihull MBC as included in the final paragraph of the response to Solihull MBC.

 

RESOLVED:

(a)       that the contents of the report be noted; and

(b)       that the draft officer response to the Solihull Draft Local Plan Review be approved as the formal consultation response. 

 

Council Response to Worcestershire County Council Minerals Plan

 

The recommendations from the Cabinet in relation to the Council’s response to Worcestershire County Council Minerals Plan were proposed by Councillor G. N. Denaro and seconded by Councillor K. J. May.

 

In proposing the recommendations Councillor Denaro drew attention to the concerns expressed in the response regarding any potential impact on development.

 

During the debate some Members expressed concern that some of the proposals within the Plan were unclear. In particular there were discrepancies within Mineral Safeguarding Areas and Mineral Resource Consultation Area boundaries. The role of the proposed Strategic Corridors also required clarification.

 

Arising from the debate it was generally agreed that the report be deferred to enable officers to seek further clarification from officers at Worcestershire County Council.

 

RESOLVED that consideration of the Council’s Response to Worcestershire County Council Minerals Plan be deferred and that following the requested clarification, a response be agreed with the Group Leaders. 

 

ICT Infrastructure Resource Proposals

Customer Access and Financial Support Services – Service Review

 

As it was likely that discussion on these items would involve the exclusion of the public from the meeting, the Chairman deferred the items to the end of the agenda.

 

Supporting documents: