LUTON/DUNSTABLE/HOUGHTON REGIS AND LEIGHTON-LINSLADE GROWTH AREA JOINT PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
Minutes of the meeting of the Luton/Dunstable/Houghton Regis and Leighton- Linslade Growth Area Joint Planning and Transportation Committee held at the Town th Hall, Luton, on Friday, 15P P September 2006 at 9.30 a.m.
PRESENT: Councillor Nicols (Chair) South Bedfordshire District Council Councillor Costin South Bedfordshire District Council Councillor Rawcliffe South Bedfordshire District Council Councillor Shadbolt South Bedfordshire District Council
Councillor R.J. Davis Luton Borough Council Councillor Franks Luton Borough Council Councillor M. Hussain Luton Borough Council Councillor Ireland Luton Borough Council Councillor Rutstein Luton Borough Council Councillor Strange Luton Borough Council
Councillor Russell Bedfordshire County Council Councillor Scott Bedfordshire County Council
CO-OPTEES: Mr. Elvin Local Strategic Partnership Mr. McKillen Go-East Councillor Terrington BATPC
OBSERVERS: Councillor Ashley Hertfordshire County Council Councillor Paternoster Aylesbury Vale District Council
IN ATTENDANCE: Councillor Dolling Luton Borough Council Mr. Kirkdale Highways Agency
OFFICERS: Mr. Bhowmick, Mr. Atkinson (SBDC), Mr. Hoad (SBDC), Mr. Chick (LBC), Mr. Dove (LBC), Mr. Khan (LBC), Mr. Platt (LBC), Mr. Slater (LBC), Mr. Storah (LBC), Mr. Malynn (Beds CC), Mr. Watts (Beds CC), Mr. Stanbridge (BCC), Mr. Ironside (NHDC), Ms. Jones (Bucks CC), Ms Thomson (AVDC)
42 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS (REF: 1)
Apologies for absence were received on behalf of:
Councillor McVicar (SBDC) Councillor Costin substituting Councillor Thake North Hertfordshire District Council (Observer) Councillor Carey Bedfordshire Association of Town and Parish Councils (Co-optee)
43 MINUTES (REF: 2)
th Resolved: That the Minutes of the meeting of the Joint Committee held on 25P P July 2006 be taken as read, approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.
44 SPECIFIC DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST (REF: 3)
None.
45 LANDOWNER CONSULTATION (REF: 5)
The Joint Committee received an update on the outcome of the landowner consultation, the information generated from it and the proposed way forward.
Members were advised that 4 seminars had been held between May and July. Each seminar had covered a different part of the Growth Area and landowners/ developers had been invited to give a presentation and/or submit written representations providing further detail.
Following those seminars three maps had been produced showing landowner/ developer sites, sites within/outside the Milton Keynes South Midlands Sub-Regional Strategy (MKSMSRS) areas of search and categorised indicative land uses proposed.
The written representations submitted at the seminars had been collated to form a ‘library’ of documents that would be available for members/ developers/ landowners and the public to view.
The local authorities would need to consider the wide variety and location of uses promoted and the significant opportunities, challenges and potential conflicts that those, the review of the Green Belt and the Growth Area designation would create.
The seminars had proved an effective and popular way of engaging with developers/landowners and the Chair commented that they had been very interesting.
Resolved: (i) That the Joint Committee’s thanks be expressed to the developers and landowners for their assistance in the consultation exercise.
(ii) That the key findings of the proposals contained in the submissions as summarised in the maps and tables appended to the report (Ref: 5) be noted.
(iii) That the Member Steering Group be requested to ensure that the preparation of the Core Strategy and Growth Area DPDs pay due regard to the key findings stemming from this exercise.
(iv) That it be noted that all the information emanating from the consultation is now in the public domain.
46 JOINT STATEMENT OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT (SCI) (REF: 6)
The Joint Committee received a report on the representations received to the pre-submission draft joint Statement of Community Involvement (SCI), officer’s responses to them and any modifications to the SCI considered necessary.
Members were advised that it was a legal requirement to prepare an SCI setting out how the Joint Committee intended to consult and proactively involve the community in the preparation of planning policy documents and the processing of planning applications.
The preparation of the document was now reaching an advanced stage and it was imperative to take it forward to the next stage as soon as possible, preferably before Christmas 2006. The next step would be to formally submit the revised draft following the recent public consultation to the Government and commence a further six weeks of public consultation on the document.
The document had been through two stages of consultation; the first a pre- preparation stage and the second, the pre-submission stage which had consisted of the production of posters, press releases and mail-outs.
The Chair commented that although he was pleased to see the response, he would liked to have seen the mapping out of where responses had come from.
Resolved: (i) That the officer responses to the representations received and the associated recommended modifications to the draft SCI attached at Appendices A and B of the report (Ref: 6) be approved.
(ii) That, subject to resolution (vi) below, approval in principle be given for the Member Steering Group to be authorised to approve the final SCI document for submission to the Government as the Joint Committee’s preferred option SCI, as modified in accordance with the schedule of representations and proposed modifications appended to the report.
(iii) That approval in principle be given for officers to be authorised to make any necessary non-material modifications to the final SCI document prior to submission.
(iv) That, subject to resolution (vi) below, approval in principle be given to the Member Steering Group to be authorised to approve the Statement that legally must accompany the submitted SCI setting out which bodies have been consulted in the preparation of the SCI to date, how they have been consulted, a summary of the main issues raised and how they have been addressed in the document.
(v) That, subject to resolution (vi) below, approval be given to commence the th associated post-submission SCI public consultation on 6P P November 2006 for a th period of 6 weeks, ending on 18P P December 2006.
(vi) That resolutions (ii), (iv) and (v) above are subject to the caveat that implementation will necessarily be determined by progress in respect of the intended formalisation of the status of the Committee as a Local Planning Authority for development plans work (under S.29 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).
47 REGIONAL FUNDING ALLOCATION – TRANSPORT SCHEMES (REF: 7)
The Joint Committee received a report on the implications of the th announcement of the Regional Funding Allocation on 6P P July.
Members were advised that the Secretary of State for Transport had generally accepted the priority advice from the region and had divided the schemes into two categories. For schemes in the Joint Committee’s area, the categories were as follows:
Schemes for funding in the next three years (2006/7 to 2008/9) Approved scheme not underway – Luton Dunstable Translink
Indicative list of schemes form 2009/10 to 2015/16 Approved schemes – A5 to M1 link road Luton Town Centre developments
Whilst the recognition of the importance of the Translink scheme and allocation of funding in the period to 2008/9 was welcomed, the potential delay to the A5 to M1 link was a matter of great concern. The announcement meant that potentially there could be up to a five year delay on the scheme from the current timetable.
The Minister had given a clear instruction to the region that it should attempt to bring forward delivery of the M1 to A5 link. Early delivery was crucial as potential urban expansions to the north of Dunstable and Houghton Regis were dependant on progressing the scheme.
The Minister also suggested that there was a possibility of building M1 J11a as part of the M1 J10 to 13 widening scheme. There were strong financial and economic arguments for constructing J11a as part of the M1 widening scheme and there would be less disruption to local traffic. It would also assist earlier delivery of the A5 to M1 link.
Mr. Kirkdale, a Highways Agency representative present at the meeting, informed the Joint Committee that the Agency had identified what needed to be undertaken to deliver the scheme earlier.
The Chair stressed that the scheme was urgent and he reiterated that if it were delayed it would have a dire effect on the Joint Committee and could encourage land use pressures in areas which were not the best.
In response to a question raised, Mr. Kirkdale reported that the Agency was looking at how funds could be received to progress the scheme.
The Chair commented that he was concerned about the lack of joined up working and he felt the Joint Committee should not have to be fighting the Highways Agency.
Mr. Kirkdale reported that the Agency was working with all areas of the Government and had made it clear how important the scheme was but there were many other schemes in the East of England which were important to others.
The Chair thanked Mr. Kirkdale for attending the meeting and commented that it would be very much appreciated if he could attend future meetings of the Joint Committee.
Resolved: (i) That it be agreed that the Joint Committee will keep pressure on the Highways Agency to progress the bypass through statutory procedures to take up funding when available.
(ii) That the Highways Agency be requested to provide to the Joint Committee the cost of construction of M1 junction 11a at the same time as the M1 junction 10 to13 widening scheme and a breakdown of the costs on a year by year basis to keep the projects aligned.
(iii) That the support of the East of England Regional Assembly be sought for early delivery of A5 to M1 link and construction of M1 J11a as part of the M1 widening scheme.
(iv) That the Highways Agency be requested to include provision for the Luton Northern bypass in the design of M1 J11a.
48 TRANSPORT CONSIDERATIONS IN DEVELOPING THE CORE STRATEGY (REF: 8)
Members were advised of the transport and related environmental considerations of further work required as part of progressing the Local Development Framework (LDF).
Particular issues were:
• The evaluation and promotion of locally promoted major transport schemes and ensuring (as best as possible) that national transport schemes support the growth strategy; • The development and use of transport evaluation tools to test possible land use and transport options, and • Drawing on the Local Transport Plan experience, ensuring consistency with adopted policy, using information and consultation responses, and drawing on the process and conclusions from the LTP Strategic Environmental Assessment.
In order to best meet the range of objectives set regionally and locally for transport and development, it was essential that the policy making process ensured that planning issues and transport issues influenced and informed each other. As the LDF was progressed a key task would be to agree how best to achieve this. This would include:
• Incorporating adopted transport policy into the LDF in an agreed manner • Testing the transport implications of development options to inform development policy • Helping to progress major transport schemes either within the LDF process or in conjunction with it • Ensuring a coordinated approach to the involvement of stakeholders and other participation opportunities, and • Ensuring transport policy objectives inform LDF policy on the design and delivery of development
Resolved: That the further work that will be required, particularly in relation to transport and related environmental and delivery considerations in developing the core strategy, be noted.
49 GYPSY AND TRAVELLER SITE – SINGLE ISSUE REVIEW OF THE REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY (REF: 9)
Members were informed about the request from the East of England Regional Assembly for advice on Gypsy and Traveller Site provision.
The response would be based on the current work on the needs assessment and would be made jointly by Bedfordshire and Luton.
Once the data had been collected from the authorities by EERA, there would be a consultation on options and issues in early 2007.
A Member commented that this was similar to work undertaken by Buckinghamshire County Council and as it was not constrained by regional/county boundaries there would be a need for Authorities working together.
Resolved: That the report be noted.
50 FUTURE OF THE GREEN BELT – CONFERENCE (REF: 10)
Members were updated about progress with the organisation of the Green Belt Conference.
The Conference had been organised to help explore the issues around the future purpose and function of the remaining South Bedfordshire Green Belt following growth area development.
th The event would be held on 17P P October at Whipsnade Wild Animal Park and Parish Councils of South Bedfordshire were encouraged to attend.
A Member from Bedfordshire County Council informed the Joint Committee that regrettably there would be little representation from the County as there had not been enough advance notice given of the event.
The Chair reported that unfortunately if the date chosen had not been agreed, there was some risk that the Conference might not have been held this year and it needed to be held to coincide with the SCI process. He agreed to ensure that the County’s comments were passed on at the event.
Resolved: (i) That the report be noted.
(ii) That Members be requested to spread the message within their Councils about the need to engage in the Green Belt Conference.
51 CONSTITUTION AND PROCEDURAL MATTERS (REF: 11)
The Joint Committee was requested to consider procedural matters that were not fixed by the Joint Committee’s Constitution and to receive reports of meetings of the Member Steering Group.
Members were advised that the Joint Committee had had various names since its inception and achieved its current title when Leighton Linslade was added into the growth area. Subsequently it had been agreed that the Joint Committee would deal with relevant matters across Luton and the whole of South Bedfordshire and it seemed sensible to simplify the title to “Luton and South Bedfordshire Joint Planning and Transportation Committee”.
The Joint Committee was provided with a copy of the Minutes of the Member th Steering Group meeting held on 7P July.P
Members were advised that the highway authorities always had been of the mind that the LTP3 would be produced through the Joint Committee but it could not be given powers by the Secretary of State; only planning powers.
The 3 local authorities currently regarded the situation differently.
The options were:
Option 1 – The Joint Committee with current mixed Executive and non- Executive membership could be consulted on an LTP by the Highway Authorities, but the Highway Authorities would decide on final content and recommend the LTP to their full Councils.
Option 2 – If S.29 of the Joint Committee was comprised solely of Executive Members it could recommend the LTP direct to Councils of Highway Authorities.
Option 3 – A Joint Committee established under S.101 of the Local Government Act (comprised solely of Executive Members) and running in parallel to the S.29 Committee could recommend the LTP direct to Councils of Highway Authorities.
Representatives of each local authority present at the meeting explained the reasons for their views in relation to the matter.
The Chair commented that the Joint Committee must take the issue forward today or, if not, in the short-term future. He added that to leave the S.29 Local Agreement open indefinitely was not tenable. He further commented that he understood that the issue was not likely to be resolved by the end of the meeting but it must not be allowed to drift on indefinitely.
It was suggested that as the three Council Leaders were present they should meet at the conclusion of the meeting to try to find a resolution to the matter.
Resolved: (i) That approval be given for the Joint Committee to be renamed as the “Luton and South Bedfordshire Joint Planning and Transportation Committee” with immediate effect.
th (ii) That the Minutes of the Member Steering Group meetings held on 7P P July st and 1P P September 2006 (circulated separately) be noted.
(iii) That the current position regarding the S.29 Local Agreement be noted.
(Note: (i) The meeting ended at 11.30 a.m.
(ii) The next meeting of the Joint Committee will be held on th Thursday, 30P P November 2006 at South Bedfordshire District Council Offices, Dunstable commencing at 3.00 p.m.)