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

There were no declarations of interest of political whip in relation to any agenda item.

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

There were no Chairman’s announcements or communications.

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of the Sustainable Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 26 September 2012 and to note actions taken since that meeting (Minutes to follow).

RESOLVED

That the Minutes of the meeting of the Sustainable Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 26 September 2012 be confirmed 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.

No petitions were received from members of the public in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure as set out in Part D2 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 were received from members of the public in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure as set out in Annex 1 of Part A4 of the Constitution.

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

The Panel was advised that no decisions of the Executive had been referred to the Panel under the Call-in Procedures set out in Appendix “A” to Rule No. S18 of the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules.

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.

The Committee was informed that a requested item had been received from Cllr Nicols relating to the draft development strategy and infrastructure requirements in the proposed urban extension north of Luton.  As Cllr Nicols was not currently present the Chairman stated that the item would be considered as part of Item 11 (Minute SCOSC/53/12 refers).

To consider the three identified priorities for the Community Safety Partnership for 2013-14.

The Deputy Executive Member for Sustainable Communities Services introduced a report that informed the Committee of the three priorities that had been identified for adoption by the Community Safety Partnership for 2013-14.  Cllr Dalgarno emphasised that although there were three identified priorities work would continue in all other areas.

In response to the report Members discussed the following issues in detail:-

·              Whether the term ‘night time economy’ was appropriate.  Officers commented that this was a national term.

·              Whether the 17% reduction in crime between July 2011 and June 2012 was accurate.  Bedfordshire Police responded that they were confident that this was accurate reflection of local performance.  It was commented that a small number of residents accounted for a high number of incidents of crime.  Integrated Offender Management (IOM) and partnership working has led to more targeted work on this small group of perpetrators.

·              The prevalence of crime that was linked to drug or alcohol abuse.

·              The multi-agency approach being used to tackle anti-social behaviour (ASB) and provide support to victims.  Officers commented that an ASB risk assessment management conference had been hosted to determine the areas of highest risk and to develop a local approach.  It was reported that in some cases the victims of ASB did not report it as they felt intimidated.

·              Reassurances that policing in rural areas would not suffer as a result of police restructures.  Bedfordshire Police responded that the continued presence of Police and Community Safety Officers (PCSOs) in rural areas showed the ongoing commitment to rural policing.

·              Why Healthier Relationships Courses were being delivered specifically to male perpetrators of domestic violence.  In response to questions from Members it was commented that whilst there were female perpetrators of domestic violence this was a smaller cohort and targeted work was more appropriately being undertaken with this group.

·              The activity that was underway to enhance links between the Youth Offending Service (YOS) and the Community Safety Partnership (CSP).  Officers commented that specific work was underway to support young offenders when they turned 18 years of age.  Young offenders had considerable contact with the Youth Offending Team up to the point they turned 18 but after that support tended to cease.  Work was underway through IOM to encourage engagement with young adults beyond the point at which they turn 18.

·              The information that had been used to determine ‘community priorities’, which included a significant amount of consultation and community feedback.

In addition Cllr Murray also commented specifically on the difficulty he had communicating with Bedfordshire Police in the Dunstable area recently.

Whilst the Committee did not feel it was necessary to make a recommendation Members did ask that concerns relating to the emerging issue of metal theft be noted.  It was commented that good work was being undertaken in relation to tackling metal theft and raising awareness of this issue locally and this needed to continue.

RECOMMENDED that the Executive support the three Partnership Strategic Assessment Priorities identified for 2013-14 as follows:-

a.      Anti-Social Behaviour (nuisance  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.

To receive the draft Masterplan and outcomes of consultation for Land at Steppingley Road and Froghall Park, Flitwick for comment prior to consideration by Executive.

The Committee received a report from the Executive Member for Strategic Planning and Economic Development that proposed a masterplan for Land at Steppingley Road and Froghall Road, Flitwick in light of public consultation.  In addition Gary Surkitt, Woods Hardwick, and Peter Bateman (Framptons) who were bpth acting for the site promoters, Old Road Securities, explained to Members the main features of the masterplan and the outcomes of the consultation process.  The Committee were also informed that two further consultation responses had been received following the publishing of the report.  These responses related to the need for greater contributions towards infrastructure, including education and health, and transport.  The Executive Member also stated that the masterplan was capable of delivering up to 400 homes, which was a reduction in housing numbers from the original 450 allocated in the original Site Allocations Development Plan Document.

In response to the report Members discussed the following issues in detail:-

·              Whether young people had been consulted on the type of equipment to be provided in the Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA) and the extent to which young people had commented as part of the consultation.  In response officers commented that the Town Council had been consulted for their views on the equipment to be provided in the MUGA.  Further discussions would be undertaken on the type of equipment to be provided during the planning application stage.  It was also commented that there had been limited responses from young people during the public consultation although opportunities had been made available.

·              The percentage of homes that would be affordable in the development.  The developer was aware of the Council’s policy for 35% affordable homes.  This figure would be discussed in greater detail during the planning application stage.

·              Concerns that there had been no attempt made to show how the concerns and responses received through the consultation had been taken into account.

·              The proposed height of properties in the development, which the developers stated would be no higher than 2 storey with space to extended into the roof unless there was a specific structural reason for a larger building.

·              The importance of ensuring effective connectivity and usage of shared space and ensuring that the two did not adversely affect one another.

·              The importance of pathways being designed so as to minimise community safety concerns.

·              The effective use of noise contours to minimise disruption to residents living adjacent to the railway.

Whilst Members did not feel a recommendation was necessary it was requested that in the future more detailed responses be provided to consultation responses detailing how they had been taken into consideration and any action that was intended to be taken.

RECOMMEDED that the Executive adopt the masterplan as technical guidance for development management purposes.

To consider the draft Development Strategy in light of public consultation and to provide views prior to consideration by Executive and Council.

The Committee were informed that in addition to the report on the draft Development Strategy a requested item had been received from Cllr Nicols and circulated to Committee Members (Appended).  The request raised several questions relating to the draft development strategy and infrastructure requirements in the proposed urban extension North of Luton.  A response to these issues was also circulated to Members of the Committee (Appended).  To enable Members of the Committee to read and consider both the requested item and the response the meeting was adjourned.

Meeting adjourned at 11.29am and reconvened at 11.40am

Cllr Nicols raised concerns that the 4,000 homes proposed North of Luton would be provided without a ‘strategic bypass’ and that infrastructure would not be provided in a timely way.  He suggested that rather than a new infrastructure route being provided it would be glued on to current infrastructure.  Cllr Nicols commented that officers had previously indicated that there would be a spine road but that it would not be provided during the early part of the development.  It was suggested that officers had also previously indicated that a mechanism for the forward funding of a strategic bypass would be designed and put in place before the housing was delivered.  It was Cllr Nicols’ view that a spine road/link road must be provided before the homes were delivered.

Cllr Nicols then commented on the lack of connection between the evidence base and the draft Development Strategy.  Specific references were made to the absence of a Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) and a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA).  Cllr Nicols commented that the document could not be viewed as a whole without the evidence base, which included the Sustainability Assessment, and this had not been provided at previous OSC meetings.  He also commented that the draft Development Strategy referred to a transport modelling study (which did not identify the potential nature of a ‘strategic’ road), which had also not been available when the Committee previously considered the strategy.  The response provided by officers stated that these documents had been presented to the Committee in May 2012 but Cllr Nicols stated they had not been completed until June/July 2012 so could not have been available.  Cllr Nicols also stated that the evidence documents were impossible to obtain, in part due to the current structure of the planning internet pages.  Cllr Nicols suggested this may have affected the consultation response to the draft Development Strategy.

Cllr Nicols felt that the draft Development Strategy was too Luton centric.  The infrastructure requirements focused on what was needed for Luton but did not identify the strategic corridor for his ward.  It was suggested that it had been a cut and paste job.

In summary Cllr Nicols stated that there was no evidence that a strategic bypass would be built in time and to standard for 4,000 homes North of Luton.  He believed that the homes would appear but the road would not.  Cllr Nicols said  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

To consider the currently drafted Committee work programme for 2012/13 and the Executive Forward Plan.

The Committee received their work programme for 2012/13 and Executive Forward Plan.  A Member queried why there was no Executive Member update item on the agenda of the Committee as was provided at other Overview and Scrutiny Committees.  It was agreed that in the future an update should be provided at the start of the meeting from the relevant Executive Members.

RESOLVED that the work programme of the Sustainable Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee be agreed and that an update from the Executive Members for Sustainable Communities Services and Sustainable Communities Strategic Planning and Economic Development be provided at all meetings in the future.