Agenda Item No.15

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

22nd July, 2003

Action Taken on Matters of Urgency

1. Summary Statement

1.1 Under Part 4 of the Council’s Constitution, the Scrutiny and Procedure Rules provide that matters may not be called-in for scrutiny when they are urgent. A matter is considered urgent where a delay would prejudice the Council’s or the public interest.

1.2 It also provides that decisions taken in this way must be reported to the next available meeting of the Council, together with the reasons for the urgency.

1.3 This report indicates actions taken as a matter of urgency during the present cycle of meetings by a Head of Service in consultation with the relevant Cabinet Member. The action taken was in accordance with the authority delegated to Executive Directors and Heads of Service.

Further details are attached for your information.

2. Recommendation

That the report be noted.

S J Cork Head of Legal and Democratic Services

Contact Officer

Graham Layton Assistant Democratic Services Officer Democratic Services Unit 0121–569-3194 3. Leader and Deputy Leader

3.1 Cradley Heath Bypass CPO Inquiry: Underwriting Funding

3.2 The Leader of the Council was informed that the Council had received funding for the construction of Cradley Heath Bypass as part of the West Transport Plan, although approval was conditional on a contribution of £2m from the proposed retail development.

3.3 Officers had been in discussions with the proposed developer who had received planning permission to develop a scheme. A draft Development Agreement and other legal agreements had been prepared and negotiations were ongoing.

3.4 The Council’s Counsel had advised that the development agreement, which was currently being negotiated, would be unlikely to be signed prior to the opening of the Cradley Heath Compulsory Purchase Inquiry on 4th June 2003, which could undermine the highway proposals and the subsequent retail development which was dependent on completion of the highway. In the event that alternative funding could not be secured, the Executive Directors of Policy and Regeneration and Urban Form, in consultation with the Deputy Leader, had given approval to allocate £2m from the Council’s Capital Programme (£1m 2004/2005 and £1m 2005/2006) to underwrite the Cradley Heath Bypass in order to provide certainty to the Inspector that the Highway Scheme was capable of being implemented.

3.5 In accordance with Section 16 of Part 4 (Special Urgency) of the Council’s Constitution, the Chair of the Finance and Audit Scrutiny Panel was consulted on the proposals and agreed that the decision on the matter could not be reasonably deferred and should be dealt with as a matter of urgency.

Source Document

Report to the Leader and Deputy Leader on 11th June, 2003.

4. Cabinet Member for Urban Form

4.1 ’s Objections to the Proposed Modifications to the Local Plan

4.2 The Council had been consulted on proposed modifications to the 2 Bromsgrove District Council Local Plan. There was a statutory six- week period of public consultation for revised development plan policies and proposals. In order to meet the consultation period deadlines for the Plan, it was felt that the best way of dealing with the issue was as a matter of urgency and the Head of Planning and Development Services, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Urban Form, had agreed a response to the proposals on behalf of the Council. The Chair of the Environmental Stewardship, Urban Form and Regeneration Scrutiny Committee, had agreed that the action could not be reasonably deferred.

4.3 Objections were made to the modifications concerning Policy Brom 5 & 5B – Areas of Development Restraint (ADRs), Proposed Modification references, Area/Mod20 & Area/Mod23. Areas of Development Restraint were locations excluded from the green belt within which no development had been proposed during the plan period, but where development might be considered in the future.

4.4 It was felt that Bromsgrove District Council had failed to incorporate the inspector’s recommendations to confirm the sites as greenbelt within the local plan. Objections were made on the grounds that sites 5A, 5C, 5D remain as ADRs within the plan and provide for the majority of the ADR land required. In addition, Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG) 3 recognised that figures relating to development within ADRs had been based on assumptions and would be prone to change, particularly up to 2021.

4.5 The assumed density of 20/ha for the development of these sites was very low, even taking into account the need for open space and other facilities. In this case the actual developments would probably be expected to be of a much higher density and so reduce the amount of development land required.

4.6 Notwithstanding this information, as greenbelt, sites BROM5 and BROM5B provided protection against the expansion of Bromsgrove and its eventual link with the smaller communities of End, Marlbrook and .

4.7 In addition to this, the emerging Regional Planning Guidance (RPG) had not identified Bromsgrove as a strategic town centre, therefore it was questionable as to the level of development that should take place in the town and consequently the amount of land required. RPG also advocated the concentration of development in the major urban area.

4.8 The Borough of Sandwell had a fairly low annual development rate 3 for housing, due to the difficulties associated with the development of land that was previously occupied by industry and its associated ground conditions. Both the Council and developers invested a lot of time and resources to ensure that sites were developed to provide good quality housing for existing residents and to improve the image of the area to attract others into the Borough. This was becoming increasingly difficult with the presence of large areas of potential greenfield development land within the Shire Counties.

Source Document

Report to Cabinet Member for Urban Form on 17th June, 2003.

4