To receive from Members any declarations of interest and of any political whip in relation to any agenda item.

None.

To receive any announcements from the Chairman and any matters of communication.

The Chairman advised the Committee that due to public interest in the Arlesey Masterplan he would reorganise the agenda so that this was the first item of business.

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of both the Special meeting on 14 January 2014 and the Sustainable Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting held on 22 January 2014 and to note actions taken since those meetings.

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meetings of the Sustainable Communities OSC held on 14 January 2014 and 22 January 2014 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

To receive petitions from members of the public in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure as set out in Annex 2 of Part A4 of the Constitution.

None.

To receive any questions, statements or deputations from members of the public in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure as set out in Annex 1 of part A4 of the Constitution.

The Chairman informed the Committee that seven persons had registered to speak on the Arlesey Masterplan.  Members of the public would be invited to speak at the start of that item.

To consider any decision of the Executive referred to this Committee for review in accordance with Procedure Rule 10.10 of Part D2. 

None.

To consider any items referred to the Committee at the request of a Member under Procedure Rule 3.1 of Part D2 of the Constitution.

None.

To consider and comment on the proposals contained within the Draft Masterplan for Arlesey Cross in light of a public consultation prior to its consideration by Executive for adoption as technical guidance for Development Management purposes.

The Chairman invited six speakers to address the Committee on this item.  In summary the speakers raised issues regarding the following:-

·         Support for the Masterplan from Arlesey Residents Association, who felt the Masterplan would enhance the town and encourage inward investment, subject to amendments.

·         The proposed relief road, which had been inappropriately designed.

·         The disproportionate and unsustainable level of development in relation to the size of Arlesey and the lack of certainty with regards housing numbers and density.

·         The interim transport assessment, which residents considered to be flawed.

·         The importance of environmental enhancements within the Masterplan.

·         The need to fully understand the cost of proposed infrastructure and whether it was viable before the Masterplan could be approved.

·         A petition that was currently circulating local residents and would arrive in due course, which demonstrated that people did not understand how they could influence the content of the Masterplan or how it would impact on Arlesey.

·         The need for more meaningful engagement with local residents particularly in relation to the Section 106 (S106) agreement.  There were concerns that consultation had not adhered to the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement and it was unclear how responses provided by local residents had informed the draft Masterplan.  During the consultation there had been insufficient copies of documentation available or use of social media, which had impacted on residents’ ability to respond.

In addition to the comments above the following suggested amendments to the Masterplan were proposed by members of the public:-

1.    The removal of paragraph 5.11 as regards the demolition of two of the properties at 133-139 High Street, which had been the subject of a previous appeal decision.

2.    Endorsement of the Masterplan should be delayed until such time as the issues raised by the public had been resolved.

3.    The need to highlight that critical infrastructure and traffic calming measures should be completed as soon as possible.

In addition the promoters of the Masterplan addressed the committee as members of the public.  The developer commented that the Masterplan built on the Council’s agreed planning policies and the Council’s Assets team continued to be engaged developing proposals.

In response to the issues raised by members of the public, Cllr Young commented on the importance of the Council agreeing a Masterplan in order to retain control over future development of an important site that had been allocated in the Local Development Framework (LDF).  S106 contributions were determined by a specified formula and local ward Members would influence this to ensure that contributions were appropriate.

The Head of Development Planning and Housing Strategy confirmed that the Planning Inspectorate had dismissed a previous appeal for an application for the demolition of two properties at 133-139 High Street.  He pointed out that the appeal proposal was for a primary access to serve five properties, not a secondary access as indicated in the Masterplan.  He agreed with the Inspector that as an access to serve five properties it was over engineered.  He referred to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 116.

To receive a verbal update from the Executive Member(s) on matters pertaining to their portfolio(s).

Cllr B Spurr advised the Committee of a recent restructure, the outcomes of which would be reported to Members at an appropriate time.  It was also commented that there had been no serious floods in Central Bedfordshire during the recent heavy rainfall.

Cllr N Young advised the Committee of a range of issues including:-

·         The Council had recently been awarded recognition in national Best Practice guidance for its work on planning performance agreements.

·         A one-month delay in relation to the Development Strategy, due to the need to develop the market assessment for Luton and discuss the results of that with Luton and neighbouring authorities under the Duty to Co-operate.

·         The consultation for the Gypsy and Traveller Local Plan, which was underway.

·         The proposed development for Land North of Houghton Regis, which had not been called in by the Secretary of State.  The Section 278 agreement for the A5- M1 link road had not yet been signed although it had been approved by the Highways Authority.

To consider and comment on the draft Central Bedfordshire Design Guide prior to its consideration by Executive for adoption as technical guidance for Development Management purposes.

The Chairman invited a representative of Bloor Homes to speak at the commencement of this item.  The representative raised a number of issues that were in summary as follows:-

·         The potential impact on investment decisions of changes in policy.

·         The need to clarify the way the Council would deal with existing reserved matters applications.

·         Whether the Council would allow some schemes to come forward without being subject to the guidance in the Design Guide.

Cllr Young clarified that developers were requested to comply with both the Design Guide and Design Codes on specific sites.  The Council had tried not to be prescriptive so as not to obstruct new development.

The Committee received a presentation from the Acting Principal Planning Officer that outlined the rationale for updating the current Guide in addition to outlining several key issues and the ways in which the Council planned to address them.  In light of the presentation and the points raised by the speaker the Committee and other Members in attendance discussed the following issues in detail:-

·         Concerns regarding revisions to parking standards, which some Members perceived were being ‘watered down’, and the need to design developments in such a way to minimise the need for enforcement.  In response, Cllr Young detailed the rationale for the parking standards and commented that many residents did not make appropriate use of allocated parking spaces.  The Council would more proactively enforce on-street parking to encourage residents to use allocated parking spaces.  Where appropriate, developers would be required to provide enforcement on housing estates.  Cllr Young agreed to further clarify references within the Guide in relation to parking standards.

·         Whether the use of communal bins could be considered more widely during the planning stage for new developments in Central Bedfordshire.  In response the Acting Principal Planning Officer commented that the Guide proposed better design for communal storage of bins rather than encouraging shared bins.  Cllr Young agreed that the Guide should encourage the wider provision of communal bins in relation to new housing developments.

·         The need to work with Bedford Borough Council (BBC) to encourage similar design standards on adjacent developments, such as Wixams.  In response, Cllr Young commented that officers communicated with colleagues at BBC but there would be a different approach to design and overall layout.

·         The need to consider the long-term maintenance costs of some building materials.  In response Cllr Young commented that the Council was considering both the engineering approach to street maintenance and the repair strategy for materials to address this concern.

·         The potential benefit of service trunking so that the Council could more accurately locate facilities under the pavement/road.

·         Whether the principles of the Design Guide could be a mandatory requirement for new developments.  In response, Cllr Young stated that the Guide had to be adhered to but some flexibility was needed and if it was mandatory it would lead to an increase in planning appeals and the Council may lose control of the planning process.  Cllr Young also pointed out that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 118.

To consider and comment on the draft report formal planning guidance regarding Sustainable Drainage in Central Bedfordshire, prior to consideration and recommendation for adoption by Executive.

The Green Infrastructure Co-ordinator delivered an overview of the Council’s responsibilities in relation to Sustainable Drainage and the manner in which the guidance aimed to provide clarity over the manner in which SuDS would be expected within new developments.

The Committee commented on the excellent nature of the guidance and in response to the presentation queried local drainage rates and the level of run-off created by new developments, particularly in the context of the changing climate.  In response the Committee were informed that drainage rates were provided by Defra, who provided nationally defined standards for sustainable drainage across England and Wales that took into account major national events.  Members also queried the timescales for implementing the guidance, which were determined by Defra.

RECOMMENDED that the Executive adopt the SuDS guidance as Supplementary Planning Guidance in support of current adopted planning policy and Technical Guidance for the purposes of Development Management, in support of policy in the emerging Development Strategy.

To consider and comment on the Local Transport Plan capital funding split for 2014/15 together with details of several Local Area Transport Schemes.

Cllr A Brown introduced a report that proposed the endorsement of the Local Transport Plan (LTP) capital funding split for 2014/15 together with details of several scheme programmes for Local Area Transport plans (LATPs).  In response Members raised concerns that £120k allocation for road safety was insufficient.  It was however clarified that if additional funding was required it would be found from other sources.

RECOMMENDED

1.    That the LATP programmes for Leighton Linslade, Ampthill and Flitwick, Marston Vale, Shefford, Silsoe and Shillington and Heath and Reach, Barton Le Clay and Toddington in 2014-15 be endorsed.

2.    That the Rural Match Fund proposals to be implemented following a bidding process by Town and Parish Councils be endorsed.

3.    That the Road Safety Financial Allocation be endorsed.

4.    That the use of the development fund in 2014/15 be endorsed.

To consider the currently drafted Committee work programme and Executive Forward Plan.

The Committee received its current draft work programme for 2014/15 and noted that an item on the Community Infrastructure Levy would be presented to the Committee in June 2014 subject to any possible amendment to the receipt of the Development Strategy.

RECOMMENDED that the work programme be approved subject to the addition detailed above.