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

·                    Cllr Mrs F Chapman MBE declared an interest in relation to Item 09 (Planning Guidance of Wind Energy Development in Central Bedfordshire) as a trustee of the Marston Vale Trust.

·                    Cllr Matthews declared an interest in relation to Item 08 (Land Rear of Central Garage [Cranfield] Development Brief) as he was a Member of the Cranfield Lower School Board of Governors.

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

There were no announcements or communications.

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.

The Scrutiny Policy Adviser informed the Committee that representations from two residents of Cranfield had been circulated to them at the meeting for consideration during Item 08.  A further statement had been provided from Cllr S Clark in relation to the same item.  In addition to these representations there were a further six persons registered to speak who would be invited to comment during the relevant item.

One speaker was invited to address the Committee at this point raising several questions in relation to the Local Area Transport Plan (LATP) for Biggleswade and Sandy that in summary related to:-

·                    The process for agreeing the LATP and who was responsible for taking it forward.

·                    Aspirations for the roundabout in Sandy at the Junction of Bedford/ St Neots/ Sunderland Roads and the High Street.

·                    Traffic surveys and monitoring of traffic and congestion along New Road to the Tesco Store and what ‘monitoring the situation’ along New Road meant.

·                    Whether there remained a focus on the Junction of New Road with the High Street.

·                    Proposals for writing to the Highways Agency regards the Junction with the A1 and the need for clarity regards statements that had been made on engagement with the Highways Agency.

·                    How local residents could demonstrate the importance of providing a right hand turn lane into Tesco from New Road.

·                    Whether the emphasis on cycle journeys was appropriate.

The Chairman requested that the speaker provide a written copy of their questions to the Scrutiny Policy Adviser so that officers could provide a written response within 5 clear working days.  It was agreed that this response also be provided to local Ward Councillors.

RESOLVED

That officers provide a written response to the issues raised by the resident within 5 clear working days and that this response also be circulated to the Ward Councillors.

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.

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 draft Development Brief following its consideration by Executive and referral back to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for further consideration.

The Chairman invited three public speakers to address the Committee in relation to this item.  The speakers raised several issues, which in summary included:-

·                    The difficulty that residents of Flitt Leys Close currently experienced in relation to parking as a result of several existing businesses.  Despite previous efforts to resolve these issues in conversation with the Council and the Police the issues had not been resolved.

·                    The amount of litter that was often present on Flitt Leys Close.

·                    Children currently played in the road on Flitt Leys Close, the additional traffic would create significant problems regarding safety without significant remodelling to the roads.

·                    Narrow access to Flitt Leys Close already created a hazard and prevented access to emergency vehicles.

·                    There was an inadequate level of off-road parking in the area.

·                    The delivery of a lower school on the proposed site was unsustainable and would lead to significant traffic congestion.  It was suggested that there was under-capacity in other schools in the area, which could be used to accommodate need rather than providing another lower school as part of this development.

·                    It was not clear why the proposed site for the lower school had changed from that on which it was proposed originally.

·                    Traffic Management solutions would not address the concerns relating to access.

In response to these issues Cllr Young stated that he was conscious of the parking concerns in the area and that these needed to be mitigated.  A new development provided the opportunity to address some of these concerns.  Cllr Young also stated that neither of the options presented to the Committee could be implemented without a detailed transport plan that would be provided alongside a planning application.  Members needed to remember that the area had been allocated for housing in the adopted Development Strategy.  If the Development Brief were not adopted the Council would have less control over the development of the site.

Cllr McVicar commented that whatever the recommendation agreed by the Committee the access to this area may need to be considered.  Cllr McVicar also reminded the Committee of their recommendations to Executive on this Development Brief at their previous meeting.  In response to a question from a Member it was also clarified by the Chairman that the site had been allocated in the Development Strategy for housing and a school “if required”.

In response to the issues raised by the public speakers and the submissions provided by residents and Cllr S Clark the Committee discussed the following issues in summary:-

·                    Concerns that the entrance through Flitt Leys Close was considered to be unsuitable and a traffic management scheme was unlikely to mitigate concerns relating to congestion.  In response Cllr Young stated that the Development Management Committee would make a decision as to the suitability of the access once a planning application had been submitted.  The site was considered suitable by Full Council to be allocated for development.  It was important that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee did not seek to act as the Development  ...  view the full minutes text for item 98.

To consider the adoption of a technical guidance document on wind energy development in Central Bedfordshire for development management purposes in order to provide comments to the Executive.

Mr S Mooring introduced a report that set out proposed technical Guidance Note 1 on wind energy development in Central Bedfordshire.  In addition the importance of the guidance as a material planning consideration was highlighted.  The guidance did not refer to specific sites and referred only to wind energy.  Guidance relating to alternative forms of renewable energy would be developed over the next 12 months.

The Chairman invited a speaker to address the Committee.  The speaker raised several issues, which in summary included:-

·                    Concerns that Guidance Note 1 was not in accordance with the Council’s own Development Strategy or national planning policy including the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN1) and the National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN3).

·                    Concerns that the Council could not adopt Guidance Note 1 without considering other alternative sources of renewable energy, which effectively appear to be ruled out by this Guidance.

In response Mr S Mooring stated that there were no references in Guidance Note 1 that ruled out other forms of renewable energy.  Guidance Note 1 did set out where the Council might ask for mitigation measures in the event of wind developments being provided in Central Bedfordshire.  It was also commented that the document highlighted sensitivity of landscape and other factors relating to wind farm developments.  In those areas deemed high or medium sensitivity an onus was placed on developers to design schemes that do more to mitigate these impacts.   Under the NPPF the Council would have to approve applications if its impacts were (or can be made) acceptable.

Members who were not on the Committee raised concerns that Guidance Note 1 was disappointing and seemed to suggest that Central Bedfordshire was not supportive of wind development.  In response Mr S Mooring commented that Guidance Note 1 identified some areas that are seen as having some potential for wind generation. 

The Chairman invited Cllr Nicols to make a presentation to the Committee with regards to Guidance Note 1.  Cllr Nicols referred to several specific concerns regards the document that were in summary as follows:-

·                    Cllr Nicols felt that Guidance Note 1 was an overt attempt to block wind turbines in Central Bedfordshire for political reasons and in particular it could damage the emerging Development Strategy.

·                    The Guidance Note was based on national planning policy that did not yet exist.

·                    The Guidance Note would prevent any wind turbines being developed in Central Bedfordshire.  The Guidance Note was not, as was required by the NPPF, a “positive strategy to promote energy from renewable and low carbon sources”.

·                    The Guidance Note did not assist all parties involved in the renewable energy development process (para 1.1 refers).

·                    The Council should wait until the remaining series of notes had been produced to guide development of renewable energy (para 1.2 refers) rather than adopting this Guidance Note now in isolation.

·                    The purpose of any proposals outside of the least sensitive geographic areas having to argue their case (  ...  view the full minutes text for item 99.

To consider the proposed Outdoor Access Improvement Plan in order to make a recommendation to the Executive.

Due to its size a copy of Appendix B (the Outdoor Access Improvement Plan) has been circulated to Members of the Committee only.  A full copy of this appendix is available from the following link:-

http://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/modgov/ieDocSearch.aspx?bcr=1

Cllr Dalgarno introduced a report that set out the proposed Outdoor Access Improvement Plan for Central Bedfordshire.  In addition to setting out the principles of the plan Cllr Dalgarno also drew attention to the consultation responses that had been received.

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

·                    The purpose of providing clarity in relation to activities that were permitted on open land.

·                    Whether allotments could be included in the Plan, it was noted that Town and Parish Councils were responsible for the provision of allotments on request.

·                    Whether money from the Sustainable Transport Fund could be used to provide footpaths in Caddington/Slip End.  Mr P Cook clarified that this funding had been provided for very specific projects, it could not be used for the schemes suggested.

·                    The benefit of placing information boards on pathways.

·                    The process through which support could be provided by the local authority to deliver suitable “healthy spaces” that were identified in local areas.  Mr J Woods commented that the Council would seek to identify potential sites and seek contributions to support their allocation as a Healthy Space.

·                    The means by which a community could ask for the designation of an area as a “local greenspace”.  Further information could be provided in the future to provide clarity on this process.  Cllr Young indicated that some areas had been allocated in the Development Strategy as local greenspace.

RECOMMENDED TO EXECUTIVE

That the Outdoor Access Improvement Plan be adopted.

To consider the third round of the Local Area Transport Plans (LATPs) and associated programmes for Chiltern, Haynes and Old Warden, and Potton, together with the refreshed LATPs for Arlesey and Stotfold, and Biggleswade and Sandy.  The Committee is asked to consider an appropriate recommendation to the Executive.

Due to their size hard copies of the appendices to this report have been circulated to Members of the Committee only.  Full copies of these appendices are available from the following link:-

http://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/modgov/ieDocSearch.aspx?bcr=1

The Chairman invited a speaker to address the Committee.  The speaker commented that Henlow Parish Council has previously submitted a wish list of six schemes to be included in the Arlesey and Stotfold LATP.  The Parish Council was disappointed that their proposed schemes had not been included and particularly disappointed that the following schemes were not included:-

1.                  the painting of arrows on the road at a junction of the High Street and the A507; and

2.                  the addition of further traffic calming measures on Church Road.

The speaker commented that these schemes would cost very little and sought a response from officers regarding their omission from the LATP.

In response Mr B King stated that a prioritisation framework had been used to determine those schemes across Central Bedfordshire that should be included in the LATPs.  The schemes proposed by the Parish Council were not included in the LATP as they were not considered as high a priority in comparison to other schemes across the Plan area.  However, during 2013/14 the Parish Council could apply for Rural Match Funding to deliver these schemes if they were willing to contribute to the cost of the schemes.  All Town and Parish Councils would be invited to apply for a share of £376k that would be available to deliver schemes in 2014/15.  Cllr A Brown commented that Members should be aware there were a lot of schemes that did not make it into the LATPs.

In response to the issues raised by the speaker and the further information provided by Mr B King in relation to the report Members queried and discussed the following issues in detail:-

·                    Assurances were sought that the Council had indeed sent a letter from Mr D Bowie (Head of Traffic Management), which Town and Parish Councils were told had been sent.  Mr P Cook stated that he would look into this and clarify whether a letter had been sent to Town and Parish Councils.  Mr B King stated that the letter relating to the Rural Match Funding had not yet been sent. 

·                    Cllr Matthews suggested that Town and Parish Councils had been misled over the time at which the Rural Match Funding would become available.

·                    Concerns relating to the impact of the impact of the Tesco development on traffic in Sandy.

·                    The need to look again at proposals for Caddington to determine whether changes were necessary in light of recent developments.

RECOMMENDED TO EXECUTIVE

That the Sustainable Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee supports each of the LATPs and the associated programmes of integrated transport schemes to be delivered in these areas.

To consider modifications to the Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Strategic Sites and Policies and recommend to Executive that they are authorised for public consultation.

Cllr Young informed the Committee that in addition to the draft Minerals and Waste Local Plan and the modifications presented therein further modifications were required in light of advice that had been received on a facility at Elstow South.  Cllr Young would seek delegated authority from the Executive to make further minor amendments as a result of advice.

In response to a question from a Member Mr L Hannington commented that during external examination the inspector received assurances that there was no uncertainty regarding the delivery of the facility at Rookery Pit South.  The proposed facility at Elstow South had therefore been removed as it was no longer considered necessary.

RECOMMENDED TO EXECUTIVE

1.                  That the modifications set out in the report be approved for publicity and consultation.

2.                  That the Director of Sustainable Communities, in consultation with the Executive Member carry out such minor changes as may be necessary prior to the public consultation and submission of any representations received by the Inspector.

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

RESOLVED

That the Sustainable Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee work programme for 2012/13 be endorsed.