DOCSLIB.ORG

Major Development – Proposed Minerals Sites West Sussex Joint Minerals Local Plan Soft Sand Review

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Major Development – Proposed Minerals Sites West Sussex Joint Minerals Local Plan Soft Sand Review Major Development – proposed minerals sites West Sussex Joint Minerals Local Plan Soft Sand Review November 2019 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The purpose of this paper is to provide evidence that the national and local policies on major development in a national park have been fully considered throughout the production of the Soft Sand Review (SSR) of the West Sussex Joint Minerals Local Plan (July 2018). This is necessary in the context of the NPPF, which states in paragraph 172: Great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues. The conservation and enhancement of wildlife and cultural heritage are also important considerations in these areas, and should be given great weight in National Parks and the Broads54. The scale and extent of development within these designated areas should be limited. Planning permission should be refused for major development55 other than in exceptional circumstances, and where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest. Consideration of such applications should include an assessment of: a) the need for the development, including in terms of any national considerations, and the impact of permitting it, or refusing it, upon the local economy; b) the cost of, and scope for, developing outside the designated area, or meeting the need for it in some other way; and c) any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and recreational opportunities, and the extent to which that could be moderated. 54English National Parks and the Broads: UK Government Vision and Circular 2010 provides further guidance and information about their statutory purposes, management and other matters. 55For the purposes of paragraphs 172 and 173, whether a proposal is ‘major development’ is a matter for the decision maker, taking into account its nature, scale and setting, and whether it could have a significant adverse impact on the purposes for which the area has been designated or defined. 1.2 Additional advice is given in Planning Practice Guidance, paragraph 005 Reference ID: 8-005- 20140306. This states: “Planning permission should be refused for major development in a National Park, the Broads or an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty except in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated to be in the public interest. Whether a proposed development in these designated areas should be treated as a major development, to which the policy in paragraph 172 of the Framework applies, will be a matter for the relevant decision taker, taking into account the proposal in question and the local context. The Framework is clear that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in these designated areas irrespective of whether the policy in paragraph 172 is applicable.” 1.3 The South Downs Local Plan (adopted July 2019) (SDLP) is also considered material. The SDLP explains that the NPPF does not define major development. The National Park Authority has 2 sought legal opinions1 on what constitutes major development. These opinions are that the definition of “major development” is based on whether, prima facie, the development might potentially have adverse impacts on a national park, rather than whether, after a careful and close assessment, it will have such adverse impacts. 1.4 As such, it is necessary at the plan-making stage to consider whether sites shortlisted for possible selection have the potential for adverse impacts on the South Downs National Park due to their scale, character or nature and are therefore considered to be major development in the National Park for the purposes of plan-making. The consequence of failing to do so would be to risk allocating land for major development that was undeliverable in a National Park because it was contrary to both paragraph 172 of the NPPF2 and Policy SD2 of the South Downs Local Plan. The major development test will also apply at the planning application stage, as set out in paragraph 172 of the NPPF and in Planning Practice Guidance, as set out in paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2 above. Inspector’s Report for the West Sussex Joint Minerals Local Plan 1.5 The West Sussex Joint Minerals Local Plan was examined by an independent Planning Inspector in 2017-18. Of particular relevance to the issue of major development were the Inspector’s conclusions on Policy M2, to commit the Authorities to starting an early focused review of the soft sand strategy. This is because he found the proposed strategy of not considering the allocation of soft sand sites in the National Park as unsound. 1.6 The Inspector’s reasoning is set out in paragraphs 22 to 39 of the Inspector’s Report. He concluded that reasonable alternatives to the strategy of ‘managed retreat’ from the National Park had not been considered as part of the sustainability appraisal process, and that it was premature to rule out sites in the National Park on the basis of there being no exceptional circumstances to justify major development. 1.7 The Inspector’s conclusions on the issue of major development and exceptional development in a national park underline the need to consider these issues at the plan-making stage. It is the reason why one of the strategy options published during the Issues and Options consultation in January 2019, Option B, is to ‘supply from sites within West Sussex, including within the National Park.’ 1 Legal Opinion In the Matter of the South Downs National Park Authority and in the Matter of Paragraph 22 of PPS7 (James Maurici, 2011); Legal Opinion In the Matter of the National Planning Policy Framework and In the Matter of the South Downs National Park Authority (James Maurici, 2014); Further Opinion in the Matter of the National Planning Policy Framework and in the Matter of the South Downs National Park Authority (James Maurici, 2014) 2 See ‘Major Development Advice’ – Legal Opinion in the matter of the South Downs National Park and in the Matter of Paragraph 116 of the NPPF (Toby Fisher, Landmark Chambers, Oct 2017) published as Core 11 in the SDLP core document library 3 2. APPROACH TO MAJOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE SOUTH DOWNS NATIONAL PARK The National Park purposes 2.1 The purposes of National parks are set out in the National Parks and Access to Countryside Act 1949, as amended by the Environment Act 1995 as follows: Purpose 1: To conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area; Purpose 2: To promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the National Park by the public The National Park Authority also has a duty when carrying out the purposes: To seek to foster the economic and social well-being of the local communities within the National Park. 2.2 In addition, Section 62 of the Environment Act 1995 also requires all relevant authorities, including statutory undertakers and other public bodies, to have regard to these purposes. Where there is an irreconcilable conflict between the statutory purposes, statute requires the Sandford Principle to be applied and the first purpose of the National Park will be given priority. Determining major development 2.3 The SDLP includes Core Policy SD3: Major Development which sets out the approach taken to determining what constitutes major development in the National Park. In short, this relates to whether development, by reason of its scale, character or nature, has the potential to have a significant adverse impact on the natural beauty, wildlife or cultural heritage of, or recreational opportunities provided by, the National Park. The SDLP also sets out a set of principles to consider when applying Policy SD3 at the planning application stage to determine whether development constitutes major development: A judgement will be made in light of all of the circumstances of the application and the context of the application site; The phrase ‘major development’ will be given its common usage, and will not be restricted to the definition of major development in the Town and County Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, or to proposals that raise issues of national significance; The determination as to whether the development is major development will consider whether it has the potential to have a serious adverse impact. It will not include an in- depth consideration of whether the development will in fact have such an impact; The application of other criteria may be relevant to the considerations, but will not determine the matter or raise a presumption either way. 2.4 These principles will be applied in the consideration of shortlisted sites in the section below. 4 Exceptional circumstances evidence 2.5 The NPPF sets out, in paragraph 172, examples of what may constitute exceptional circumstances to justify development in a national park. These are set out in full in paragraph 1.1 above. In short, they relate to the need for the development; the cost of (and scope for) meeting the need elsewhere or in another way; and the impact on landscape/recreation and how this might be mitigated. Furthermore, major development must be shown to be in the public interest. SDLP Policy SD3: Major Development also sets out the same exceptional circumstances as paragraph 172 of the NPPF. 2.6 A brief analysis of what, if any, exceptional circumstances might be considered at the appropriate time, are set out in the section below. 5 3. ASSESSING POTENTIAL MINERALS SITES 3.1 The following section provides a proforma-based analysis of the sites which have been considered for allocation in the SSR. This draws information from the Soft Sand Site Selection Report (4SR) (WSCC/SDNPA, 2019) which was prepared for the Issues and Options consultation stage for the SSR.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • This Email Was Scanned by the Government Secure Intranet Anti-Virus Service Supplied by Vodafone in Partnership with Symantec
    From: Catherine Myres To: Common Land Casework Subject: COM749 Date: 11 November 2015 18:55:44 Attachments: Final letter of mass objection including 140 names.doc 0490_001.pdf To whomever it may concern Please find attached a petition which was signed by those closest to these commons opposing the proposed fence. The letter was sent to Sussex Wildlife Trust. I note in their application they claim there is general agreement for their fencing, but this is not the case, as this letter and petition prove among those who live closest to the commons. SWT are aware of the high level of opposition but have chosen not to inform you of this. I don’t know if this invalidates their application but it is certainly unethical. Catherine Myres & Lucy Petrie Catherine Myres Old Rectory Cottage Trotton Nr Petersfield Hants GU31 5EN 01730 814170 07989 491383 This email was scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisations IT Helpdesk. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes. 4th December 2013 Gemma Harding Sussex Wildlife Trust Woods Mill Henfield West Sussex BN5 9SD Dear Gemma Ref: Iping Common Proposal to permanently fence Iping & Trotton Commons As residents of these parishes and frequent users of Iping and Trotton Commons, we are writing to object to the proposed permanent perimeter fencing of these areas. We have collected over 140 signatures in opposition to the fencing. 95% live within the immediate vicinity of the common and are regular users.
    [Show full text]
  • THE SERPENT TRAIL11.3Km 7 Miles 1 OFFICIAL GUIDE
    SOUTH DOWNS WALKS ST THE SERPENT TRAIL11.3km 7 miles 1 OFFICIAL GUIDE ! HELPFUL HINT NATIONAL PARK The A286 Bell Road is a busy crossing point on the Trail. The A286 Bell Road is a busy crossing point on the Trail. West of Bell Road (A286) take the path that goes up between the houses, then across Marley Hanger and again up between two houses on a tarmac path with hand rail. 1 THE SERPENT TRAIL HOW TO GET THERE From rolling hills to bustling market towns, The name of the Trail reflects the serpentine ON FOOT BY RAIL the South Downs National Park’s (SDNP) shape of the route. Starting with the serpent’s The Greensand Way (running from Ham The train stations of Haslemere, Liss, 2 ‘tongue’ in Haslemere High Street, Surrey; landscapes cover 1,600km of breathtaking Street in Kent to Haslemere in Surrey) Liphook and Petersfield are all close to the views, hidden gems and quintessentially the route leads to the ‘head’ at Black Down, West Sussex and from there the ‘body’ finishes on the opposite side of Haslemere Trail. Visit nationalrail.co.uk to plan English scenery. A rich tapestry of turns west, east and west again along High Street from the start of the Serpent your journey. wildlife, landscapes, tranquillity and visitor the greensand ridges. The trail ‘snakes’ Trail. The Hangers Way (running from attractions, weave together a story of Alton to the Queen Elizabeth Country Park by Liphook, Milland, Fernhurst, Petworth, BY BUS people and place in harmony. in Hampshire) crosses Heath Road Fittleworth, Duncton, Heyshott, Midhurst, Bus services run to Midhurst, Stedham, in Petersfield just along the road from Stedham and Nyewood to finally reach the Trotton, Nyewood, Rogate, Petersfield, Embodying the everyday meeting of history the end of the Serpent Trail on Petersfield serpent’s ‘tail’ at Petersfield in Hampshire.
    [Show full text]
  • Chichester Natural History Society
    Chichester Natural History Society Registered Charity No 259211 Chair: Christian Hance 389 Chichester Road, Bognor Regis, PO21 5BU (01243 825187) Membership: Heather Hart The Hays, Bridle Lane, Slindon Common, Arundel, BN18 0NA (01243 814497) Website: www.chichesternaturalhistorysociety.org.uk NEWSLETTER No 200 May 2021 FROM THE CHAIR Good Morning. As the country emerges from our “battle” with Covid 19, I am looking forward to enjoying this summer and really appreciating the wildlife in our local area. Whilst it will be great to have all restrictions removed, I hope that we do not lose the increased community spirit and politeness that developed during the lockdowns. Our first summer field outings have started and have proved very popular. Indeed, the limited space available on each walk, combined with the heavy demand from members, has meant that the field outing organiser’s husband has had to miss out! However, I am hopeful that I can attend the next outing, when numbers will not be limited. Alongside the summer field outings, we will also be carrying out our annual surveys of the ecological succession at Medmerry. I would like to take this opportunity to remind members that we have three pieces of equipment available for members to borrow. We have two types of Bat detector available, a static one and a handheld device. If you would like to book a slot to borrow either of these please contact Linda Smith. Following on from last year, I will be carrying out some bat surveys around the NT North Wood, using the handheld detector. If you would like to accompany me, please drop me a line.
    [Show full text]
  • New-Lipchis-Way-Route-Guide.Pdf
    Liphook River Rother Midhurst South New Downs South Lipchis Way Downs LIPHOOK Midhurst RAMBLERS Town Council River Lavant Singleton Chichester Footprints of Sussex Pear Tree Cottage, Jarvis Lane, Steyning, West Sussex BN44 3GL East Head Logo design – West Sussex County Council West Wittering Printed by – Wests Printing Works Ltd., Steyning, West Sussex Designed by – [email protected] 0 5 10 km © 2012 Footprints of Sussex 0 5 miles Welcome to the New New Lipchis Way This delightful walking trail follows existing rights of way over its 39 mile/62.4 kilometre route from Liphook, on Lipchis Way the Hampshire/West Sussex border, to East Head at the entrance to Chichester Harbour through the heart of the South Downs National Park.. Being aligned north-south, it crosses all the main geologies of West Sussex from the greensand ridges, through Wealden river valleys and heathlands, to the high chalk downland and the coastal plain. In so doing it offers a great variety of scenery, flora and fauna. The trail logo reflects this by depicting the South Downs, the River Rother and Chichester Harbour. It can be walked energetically in three days, bearing in mind that the total ‘climb’ is around 650 metres/2,000 feet. The maps divide it into six sections, which although unequal in distance, break the route into stages that allow the possible use of public transport. There is a good choice of accommodation and restaurants in Liphook, Midhurst and Chichester, elsewhere there is a smattering of pubs and B&Bs – although the northern section is a little sparse in that respect.
    [Show full text]
  • The Serpent Trail 2 the SERPENT TRAIL GUIDE the SERPENT TRAIL GUIDE 3
    The Serpent Trail 2 THE SERPENT TRAIL GUIDE THE SERPENT TRAIL GUIDE 3 Contents THE SERPENT TRAIL The Serpent Trail ...........................................3 6. Henley to Petworth, via Bexleyhill, Explore the heathlands of the South Downs National Park by Wildlife ..........................................................4 River Common and Upperton ............. 22 Heathland timeline .......................................8 7. Petworth to Fittleworth ........................ 24 following the 65 mile/106 km long Serpent Trail. Heathland Today ........................................ 10 8. Hesworth Common, Lord’s Piece and Discover this beautiful and internationally The name of the Trail reflects the serpentine Burton Park ........................................... 26 Heathland Stories Through Sculpture ....... 10 rare lowland heath habitat, 80% of which shape of the route. Starting with the serpent’s 9. Duncton Common to Cocking has been lost since the early 1800s, often head and tongue in Haslemere and Black 1. Black Down to Marley Common ......... 12 Causeway ............................................. 28 through neglect and tree planting on Down, the ‘body’ turns west, east and west 2. Marley Common through Lynchmere 10. Midhurst, Stedham and Iping previously open areas. Designed to highlight again along the greensand ridges. The Trail and Stanley Commons to Iron Hill ...... 14 Commons ............................................. 30 the outstanding landscape of the greensand ‘snakes’ by Liphook, Milland, Fernhurst, 3. From Shufflesheeps to Combe Hill hills, their wildlife, history and conservation, Petworth, Fittleworth, Duncton, Heyshott, 11. Nyewood to Petersfield ....................... 32 via Chapel Common ............................ 16 the Serpent Trail passes through the purple Midhurst, Stedham and Nyewood to finally Heathlands Reunited Partnership .............. 34 4. Combe Hill, Tullecombe, through heather, green woods and golden valleys of reach the serpent’s ‘tail’ at Petersfield in Rondle Wood to Borden Lane ...........
    [Show full text]
  • 184 KB 21St Nov 2017 SDS Comments on the South Downs
    South Downs Local Plan: Pre-submission Comments of the South Downs Society The South Downs Society has nearly 2,000 members and its focus is campaigning for the conservation and enhancement of the special qualities of the national park and its quiet enjoyment. Our objectives and geographical area of interest are in line with those of the park authority and, as the national park society for the South Downs National Park, we trust that our comments will be afforded appropriate weight. The Society has commented in detail at each previous stage of the plan’s preparation and at each stage we have enjoyed the benefit of our own meetings with the team responsible for drawing up the plan. This courtesy has been much appreciated. We welcome the overall structure of the plan and endorse the landscape-led approach and the emphasis on eco-system services. We have found the plan to be comprehensive, well thought through and appropriate in its structure and content to the particular circumstances of the national park. We note that the wording of the draft policies is essentially positive, in line with the intent behind the National Planning Policy Framework, albeit necessarily conditioned by the requirements of the park’s statutory purposes and duty. We endorse the Vision for the National Park and the Local Plan Objectives. Core policies SD1: Sustainable Development SD2: Ecosystems Services SD3: Major Development All supported. We welcome in particular the wording of SD3 on the definition of major development which reflects the Maurici opinion, the views of this organisation and the work carried out recently on behalf of CNP, CPRE and the National Trust into the workings of the “major development test” across the national parks.
    [Show full text]
  • Site Identification Plan
    SITE IDENTIFICATION PLAN Note: In this paper: CLT = community land trust CDC = Chichester district council SIPC = Stedham with Iping parish council (PC); TCPC = Trotton with Chithurst PC RPC = Rogate PC; The foundation of any CLT is the identification of suitable sites or buildings for its purposes. Like most CLTs, START’s first priority is to provide affordable housing and the identification of suitable land or buildings for this can be an extensive and complicated process – often with no guarantee of success – so we have started the process already, even before putting time and resources into project planning. Context 1. An important element of creating a plan for site identification is to assess the level of need for affordable housing. RPC had been discussing this with CDC since late 2016 and CDC and they carried out a housing needs survey in March 2017, and this was built into the neighbourhood plan it is developing. Formal surveys have not yet been conducted in the other two parishes, but SIPC estimated its needs through a survey as part of the development of its neighbourhood plan and TCPC has a small enough parish to be able to estimate its needs quite easily. Full housing needs surveys will probably be needed in all 3 parishes before START makes any formal application for funding of new homes. 2. In the meantime, we are using the following estimates of probable need across the three parishes, figures in brackets were those that emerged from the RPC housing needs survey): • 15-25 affordable rented units (10-15) • Up to 15 shared ownership units (up to 10) • Up to 10 market rented units (up to 6) Factors in identifying suitable sites 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Petworth: in the Town & Around
    point your feet on a new path Petworth in the town and around Distance: 5 km=3 miles easy walking Region: West Sussex Date written: 28-feb-2019 Author: Sackboot Last update: 3-sep-2021 Refreshments: Petworth Map: Explorer 133 (Haslemere) but the map in this guide should be sufficient Problems, changes? We depend on your feedback: [email protected] Public rights are restricted to printing, copying or distributing this document exactly as seen here, complete and without any cutting or editing. See Principles on main webpage. Historic country town, views, horse pastures, streams, bridges In Brief Petworth is among the oldest and most opulent little towns in Sussex, famous for its elegant stone buildings and antique dealers. Most visitors come to visit Petworth House and Park, a splendid treasure in the bejewelled collection of National Trust properties. You can combine this visit with the town and the scenic walk described here by obtaining a pass- out at the town entrance. There are no nettles on this walk so any kind of sensible attire is fine. Because the first half of the walk is across horse pastures, there is a fair amount of sticky ground in the damper seasons, when boots are recommended. There are some high stiles on this walk, requiring some steady agility. Your dog will enjoy this walk but a short leash will be needed in the town because of the traffic. The walk begins at the Market Square in Petworth , West Sussex, postcode GU28 0AP . There is a large car park just south of the Market Square, allowing up to 7 hours for a very reasonable charge.
    [Show full text]
  • Lavington and Duncton
    move on his work was was work his on move countryside every day day every countryside last painting. last Petworth. The effect of the the of effect The Petworth. canvases out into the the into out canvases his completing after the verdant hills south of of south hills verdant the with paints, brushes and and brushes paints, with in 1979, barely a month month a barely 1979, in he moved his family to to family his moved he wheelbarrow loaded loaded wheelbarrow the Downs where he died died he where Downs the a gypsy caravan for £20, £20, for caravan gypsy a landscape, steering his his steering landscape, to return always would of Sussex countryside and and countryside Sussex of absorbed himself in the the in himself absorbed he Yet coastline. the recently bought six acres acres six bought recently were completed. Hitchens Hitchens completed. were of space and light the the Blitz and so, having having so, and Blitz the studio and later a house house a later and studio Selsey and began to paint paint to began and Selsey studio was damaged in in damaged was studio in the caravan whilst his his whilst caravan the in carriage on the beach in in beach the on carriage collections around the world. the around collections In 1940 Hitchens’ London London Hitchens’ 1940 In water. The family lived lived family The water. bought a converted railway railway converted a bought acclaim and a place in museums and and museums in place a and Estate of Ivon Hitchens Ivon of Estate electricity or running running or electricity In the 1960s Hitchens Hitchens 1960s the In courtesy 1948, Garland, George international in its outlook.
    [Show full text]
  • Walks & Strolls
    WALKS & STROLLS AUGUST - OCTOBER 2018 Dear Members, British Summer Time continues throughout this programme, so let’s use the long days to enjoy our walking and travelling. After a late start, early summer has been beautifully green, so we hope to see full harvests in due course. With our varied weather, plants and animals on the Downs have much to cope with each year and it’s interesting to see how they are affected. You’ll notice this time that several Saturdays do not have any of the longer walks. Several Saturday walks leaders have had health and/or age issues lately! They have mostly been covered by strolls on these days, which are particularly welcome. Thinking about strolls, sadly Peter Harris has found it necessary to say farewell as a strolls leader. We are most grateful for his contribution over the years, especially for his entertaining themed strolls, and hope we shall still see him out strolling from time to time. All your walk offers are valuable but arranging them suitably is not always easy. The same areas do seem to cluster. So it’s worked out that lunch at Burpham is popular - in successive walks. However they do cover quite different ground. And if some people had not been able to swap there would have been three. Let’s just call it “Love Burpham Week”! In general we are down on number of walks leaders. Ideally all walkers would take part in leading so there would be a large enough pool of leaders to cope with temporary unavailability.
    [Show full text]
  • Representations Received at Proposed Submission Draft Stage
    Response ID ANON-NRVC-BRUF-8 Submitted to Proposed Submission Draft Soft Sand Review of the West Sussex Joint Minerals Local Plan - Representations Period Submitted on 2020-03-01 22:40:05 Consultation Response Survey Part A - Personal Information A1 Personal Details Job title (where relevant): Organisation or affiliation (where relevant): A2 Client Details if applicable Title: First name: Last name: Job title (where relevant): Resident Other: Part B - Representation B1 Which part of the Soft Sand Review does this representation relate to? SSR Reference No.: SSR 1 (Chapter 7); SSR 30; SSR SSR34 and SSR35. SSR27 B2 Do you consider the Soft Sand Review to be: (tick as appropriate) Legally compliant or sound? - B2.1 Legally compliant?: Yes Legally compliant or sound? - B2.2 Sound?: No B3 Do you consider the Soft Sand Review to be unsound because it is not: (tick as appropriate) B4 If you consider the Soft Sand Review to be be unsound and/or not legally compliant, please explain why in detail in the box below. Please be as precise as possible. Reasons why plan is believed to be unsound and/or not legally compliant.: The town and surrounding villages are acknowledged one of the most as beautiful and historic areas within West Sussex, positioned at the foot of the South Downs National Park. In common with many market towns the local economy is fragile and sensitive to change. Currently our High Street and surrounding area is bucking the national trend, businesses are choosing to come to Steyning and open. The site just outside Steyning’s inclusion could stop or alter this trend.
    [Show full text]
  • Stedham with Iping Parish Council
    STEDHAM WITH IPING PARISH COUNCIL The Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations are in force, giving a right to members of the public to record (film, photograph and audio-record) and report on proceedings at meeting of the Council and its Committees. The Council will make a recording of the meeting which will be made available on request. Summons to: Simon Barnard, Ruth Cooper, Neil Read, Amanda Hollingshead, Terry Stevens From: Morag Birch Clerk to the Council Subject: Parish Council Meeting To be held: 13th August 2020, 6:30pm by Video Conference PLEASE NOTE: This meeting will be held via a video conferencing tool. If members of the public wish to attend the meeting please contact the Clerk ([email protected]) for details on how to join. AGENDA 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE & RESIGNATIONS 2. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS 3. DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS - if any. Please advise of any changes to Register of Interests 4. REPORTS FROM CDC (JUDY FOWLER) AND WSCC (KATE O’KELLY) 5. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC 6. EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL 6.1. Response to Council’s legal representative with regard to potential grounds for appeal 6.2. Inclusion of Council statement and associated documents in minutes of Council meeting 7. FINANCE & GENERAL PURPOSES COMMITTEE 7.1. Elect new Chair of F&GP Committee 7.2. Financial Summary and Report 7.3. Approve Annual Accounts & Internal Audit Report 2019-2020 7.4. Expenditure requiring approval 7.5. Amendment of Approvals process 7.6. Recommendations for communal on-line drive 8. PLANNING COMMITTEE(SIMON BARNARD) 8.1.
    [Show full text]