If any

The Chairman informed the Committee and the public that items 5 – 10 would be heard in the morning.  If these items had been completed prior to 12:15 then item 20 Luton Airport would be considered prior to lunch.

There would be a comfort break at a convenient time about 11:15 – 11:30.  

Item 11 would not be heard before 1.30pm at the earliest.

Speaking – due to the considerable interest in items 6 – 10, the Chairman agreed that where there are more than 1 speaking in a section then they would have 2 minutes each.

The Chairman reminded Councillors and members of the public to silence their mobile phones for the duration of the meeting.

Subject to declarable interests all Members of the Committee have the right to vote on all matters of business considered by the Committee.

Rule No. 13.5.5 of the Constitution states that Members do not vote or take part in the meeting’s discussions on a proposal unless they have been present to hear the entire debate, including the officer’s introduction to the matter.

The Chairman, under Part E3 paragraph 9.2 has a second or casting vote should there be equal numbers of votes for and against an item.  This provision makes it quite clear that the Chairman is entitled to vote on any item of business.  There is no restriction or limitation on how the second or casting vote should be exercised nor is there a requirement that the right be exercised at all.

Prior to consideration of item 9

The Chairman advised members that there had been certain allegations made against the Council on these applications both in the press and in open meetings.  FoE had accused Councillors of already deciding the applications and accusations that secret meetings had taken place.  The Chairman categorically stated that no such meetings had taken place and that this Committee had not decided the applications, indeed this was the first time that the majority of members had been involved.

The Chairman advised members that in November 2012 a separate presentation by both applicants to Officers and Local Ward Members occurred.  After the presentation Ward Members asked some questions but no discussions took place and those Ward Members who were members of the Development Management Committee did not become involved and did not form any opinions.  The members felt that as they were elected by residents of Leighton Buzzard to represent them it was vital that they attend in order to be up to date on the latest plans.

There were also allegations that local people would not know until today if they would speak.  FoE was informed on Thursday night that any person wishing to speak should register and that a final decision would be made this week.  The Chairman has never refused anyone to speak on a contentious application.  

There had also been suggestions that Development on the South side would not take place.  This was far from the truth; it was never going to be a quick fix but a long term programme.

Barwood had requested that both applications 9 and 10 be taken together.  Officers considered this approach carried several inherent risks which might affect the soundness of the decisions taken, particularly the increased potential for the individual merits and characteristics of the two schemes to be confused at the decision stage.  Therefore the applications will be considered separately.  Each of the two separate proposals should be dealt with on the basis of their individual merit but having regard to potential combined impacts.  For the avoidance of doubt, Officers considered that both schemes should be regarded as acceptable in combination.

The Chairman advised the Councillors and members of the public that items 11 – 20 would be considered in the following order:-

12, 14, 15, 16, 20, 11, 13, 17, 18 and 19.

The Chairman informed the Committee that the applicant for item 13 – 113 Camberton Road, Linslade, Leighton Buzzard had withdrawn the application prior to commencement of the meeting.