To approve as a correct record the minutes of the last meeting held on 4 August 2009.  (Copy to follow).

RESOLVED

that the Minutes of the meeting of the Sustainable Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 4 August 2009 be confirmed and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

To receive from Members declarations and the nature thereof in relation to:

(a)       Personal Interests in any agenda item.

(b)       Personal and Prejudicial Interests in any agenda item.

(c)        Any political whip in relation to any agenda item.

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

The Chairman read a statement setting out the Committee’s role with regard to the Local Development Framework and Development Planning Documents.  He referred in particular to the need to select sites for over 65,000 new homes in Central Bedfordshire and provide additional pitches for Gypsies and Travellers.  He also referred to the creation of a Task Force by the Committee to assist it in its role and then advised the meeting that the Task Force would be composed of the following Members:

Cllrs:   P Snelling (Chairman)

            P N Aldis

            L Birt

            D J Gale

            Mrs R B Gammons

            R Johnstone

            J Kane

            Mrs C Turner

            P Williams

Named Substitutes:

Cllrs:   Mrs A Barker

            A D Brown

            Ms A M W Graham

A copy of the statement is attached as Appendix A to these minutes.

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.

No petitions were received from members of the public in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure as set out in Annex 2 of Part A4 of the Constitution.

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.

No questions, statements or deputations from members of the public were received in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure as set out in Annex 1 of Part A4 of the Constitution.

To consider any matter referred to the Committee for a decision in relation to the call-in of a decision.

No matters were referred to the Committee for a decision in relation to the call-in of a decision.

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.

No items were referred to the Committee for consideration at the request of a Member under Procedure Rule 3.1 of Part D2 of the Constitution.

To consider the proposed criteria for the assessment of Gypsy and Traveller sites in order to meet the pitch requirement for the former Mid Bedfordshire District Council area.

The Committee received a report which sought its views on proposed criteria for the assessment of Gypsy and Traveller sites.  The meeting noted that the criteria included a proposed scoring system to establish the appropriateness of each site.   In addition Members had before them an addendum to the report which set out additional criteria and an amended scoring system.

Members were aware that additional sites were necessary in order that the pitch requirement for the former Mid Bedfordshire District Council area could be met.  The meeting noted that local authorities were required by Government, through the Housing Act 2004, to assess the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers alongside the settled population. Local authorities were also required by the Act to develop a strategy to address any unmet need that was identified. In the former Mid Beds area this was the Gypsy and Traveller Development Plan Document (DPD). The Council’s progress on meeting this statutory duty was regularly and rigorously monitored by central Government.

Members noted that there were practical reasons for providing sufficient sites.  If there was a lack of authorised sites then unauthorised sites, and the problems associated with them, would continue.   The report also made clear that if the Council did not allocate sufficient sites for Gypsy and Traveller need then the Planning Inspector at the Public Examination of the DPD was likely to find the document’ unsound’.  This could result in either the Council being required to begin the site search process again or the Inspector allocating sites from those previously considered by the Council.  As the Inspector’s report was binding there would be no further opportunity for Members to influence the outcome of the DPD.

Members then sought clarification on a number of issues.  It was noted that sites could be both inside or outside rural settlement areas though it was preferable for them to be close facilities such as schools.  Sites in the Green Belt would not be permitted in the former Mid Beds area.  Sites could be on either Council or privately owned land and if the site was run by a private landlord then he or she would fund the site.  The Portfolio Holder for Sustainable Development stated that a limited amount of Government funding was available towards the development of an identified site.  If suitable land became available the Council was free to consider buying it and applying for government assistance. 

It was noted that the presence of flight paths had not prevented the development of the settled communities’ settlements so this lack of ‘acoustic privacy’ was unlikely to affect the location of Gypsy and Traveller sites.

A Member queried whether the Gypsy and Traveller community had been given the opportunity to consider and comment on the selection criteria and scoring system as he understood most did not want to live in towns and urban areas.   In response the Portfolio Holder stated that the guidance issued by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) had been drawn up in consultation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.

To receive a presentation.

The Committee considered a report by the Assistant Director Highways and Transport which advised Members on the progress made on the development of the Central Bedfordshire Council Congestion Strategy and sought their views on the draft Strategy at this early stage.

Members were aware that traffic congestion was one of the Council’s twelve priorities and that the following four guiding principles had been identified as forming the means of Congestion Management:

• Network Management (making better use of the existing road network by identifying the most congested junctions and roads and introducing low cost improvements to increase capacity).
• Smarter Travel Choices (promoting high quality alternatives to private motoring for essential journeys to reduce congestion; the choices to include walking, cycling and, especially, public transport).
• Demand Management (managing the supply of parking to promote short-stay for shoppers in town centres and long stay for commuters in edge of town park and ride).
• Network Enhancement (providing new infrastructure to remove traffic from congested areas).

All four principles were seen as complementary and might need to be applied in a bespoke form to different parts of the Council area.  Members noted that the Strategy would form the core policy document for the Highways and Transportation Service.

The meeting also noted that a consultation workshop seminar was due to take place in Autumn 2009 with key stakeholders.  The aim of the seminar was to discuss the approach to congestion management as outlined and use the information and opinions gathered to inform the further development of the Strategy before wider consultation.  It was envisaged that the final version of the Strategy would go before Executive by March 2010.

The Portfolio Holder for Safer and Stronger Communities referred to the cross cutting nature of the issues raised by a congestion strategy and to the changes in approach that would take place when Local Transport Plan 3 (LTP3) was introduced as this encouraged greater involvement with adjacent local authorities.  In connection with the workshop he asked that Members also be included within the definition of ‘key stakeholders’ and suggested that any views arising from the seminar should be reported back to the Committee.

The Chairman stressed that, at this stage of the Strategy’s development, the Committee’s views were only being sought on the four guiding principles and that a system of criteria would be considered in the future.

Members then referred to a number of Network enhancement schemes which they wished to see introduced including M1 junction 11A to ease congestion in Dunstable, an Ampthill, Flitwick, Westerning by-pass and the extension of Court Drive through to the A5.  A Member suggested that Network Enhancement and Network Management should be regarded as joint first in terms of the priority to make better use of the existing road network.  He suggested Demand Management be priority 2 and Smarter Travel Choices priority 3.

The Member then expressed concern that the Council could resort to a ‘one size fits all’ approach to parking and suggested that parking matters should be dealt with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

To examine why various local bus services receive financial support from the Council and consider a strategy to avoid overspending in the current financial year.

(Note: Appendix A to this report is to follow).

The Committee considered a report the Assistant Director Highways and Transport which explained why various commercial bus services received financial support from Central Bedfordshire Council, the estimated level of overspend on this service for 2009/10 and the various options which could be adopted and implemented with the aim of making a recommendation to the Executive on this matter

Members noted that the Bedfordshire Local Transport Plan 2006/07-2010/11 (LTP2) stated that the Council should supplement the commercially provided public transport network. In addition, its daughter document, the Bedfordshire Bus Strategy (BBS), set key priorities which included a number of service types which were not commercially attractive and required support.   However, the Assistant Director’s report stated that the resulting supported public transport network lacked the integrated approach to network planning envisaged in the BBS.

Turning to the costs involved Members noted that whilst the total funding available for such services in 2009/10 was £1,839,610 the latest estimated full year contract commitment was £1,903,000, giving an estimated overspend of £63,390 before inflation.  The meeting was advised that the situation had partly arisen as a result of the different ways in which the local bus contracts, and the associated budgets, were divided up during Local Government Reorganisation.  In addition Bedfordshire County Council, as a legacy authority, had not made the reductions needed to bring the spending within budget.

To assist Members in their deliberations a table within the officer’s report set out the full year savings that could be achieved by adopting one of the following options together with the related impacts and risks:

• Option A Maintain status quo-nil saving-overspend of £100k-£140k
• Option B Withdrawal of all supported Sunday services-£109k saving
• Option C Withdrawal of all supported evening services-£124k saving
• Option D Withdrawal of poor performing services based on objective weighted criteria-up to £200k saving depending on the criteria used

The objected weighted criteria previously used by Bedfordshire County Council were attached as an Appendix to the report.

Members were aware that the full year savings would only be partially achievable in 2009/10 and that a contractual notice period of two months meant that notice would have to be given on or before 31 September 2009 to cancel services from 1 December.  This would a maximum saving of 33% of the full year savings during 2009/10 although any option adopted would generate the full financial benefit during 2010/11.

The Assistant Director explained that he sought guidance from the Committee on which option they would wish to see adopted whilst the Portfolio Holder for Safer and Stronger Communities emphasised the urgent need for a decision given the projected overspend and the timescale involved.  However, some Members expressed concern that a decision was being sought without any information on individual service routes being made available as some services could provide better value for money than others.  It was felt that the issue would be better dealt with by way of a full review of supported services including, if necessary, the possible provision of services by alternative  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

To consider and agree the Committee’s current Work Programme and examine the need to establish an additional Task Force.

The Committee considered a draft Work Programme for the 2009-10 municipal year and beyond.

RESOLVED

1          that the draft Work Programme for the 2009-10 municipal year and beyond be approved and adopted.

2                    that no further Task Forces be established to assist the Committee in reviewing specific items on the adopted Work Programme.

To consider the Executive Forward Plan.

The Committee considered the Executive Forward Plan for the period 1 September 2009 to 31 August 2010.  The Chairman referred to the Executive’s forthcoming consideration of a report on Town Centre Management arrangements across Central Bedfordshire on 10 November following the Committee’s consideration of the same item at its meeting on 29 September.  He sought the views of those Members from the south of Central Bedfordshire, who also served as town councillors, on the positions held by their authorities.  He also asked that the views of those town councils in the north of Central Bedfordshire, which had no prior experience of such town centre management arrangements, be sought and reported to the next meeting of the Committee.

NOTED

To note that the next meeting of the Committee will be held on 9 September 2009.

NOTED

that the next meeting of the Committee will be held on 9 September 2009.