Agenda Template
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CABINET - 6 October 2016 MINUTES Present: Councillors: R Sleigh, I Courts, T Dicicco, K Grinsell, R Hulland, K Meeson, T Richards OBE, J Burn, J Windmill and K Hawkins Officers: Apologies: Councillors: D Evans 1. APOLOGIES Apologies were received from Cllr Evans; Cllr Hall was in attendance as substitute. 2. DECLARATION OF INTEREST Cllrs Courts and Richards reminded Cabinet that in relation to items 5, 8 and 9 they represented the Council on the North Solihull Regeneration Board. 3. QUESTIONS AND DEPUTATIONS A request to ask a question was made by Miss Sarah Evans. The question read: “What is the rationale behind disposing and de-declaring part of a nature reserve especially when factors, including that it is in an area which is the third most densely populated and deprived area as well as the high possibility of irreversible damage to wildlife and a protected bat area and natural habitat for owls, indicate that it would be foolish to build on it?” In responding the Leader made the following statement following the debate on the substantive report: Rationale The Cooks Lane site was allocated within the Solihull Local Plan as a site to deliver new housing that was required within Solihull to meet the needs of the local community. This Plan had received the full scrutiny of the Planning Inspectorate prior to adoption. In addition to meeting the Council’s housing requirements the site also conformed to the ambitions of North Solihull Partnership. The Partnership was responsible for transforming the three wards of Chelmsley Wood: Smith's Wood, Kingshurst and Fordbridge by improving homes, shops, schools, health and community facilities, transport, the environment and creating jobs. The authority had spent over £0.5b in North Solihull, which had included new or rebuilt schools and had made a massive commitment to the area. 1 CABINET - 6 October 2016 Whilst it was acknowledged that there would be a loss of habitat within the Babbs Mill Local Nature Reserve additional ecological enhancements were proposed on site and within 1 km of the site in the Cole Bank Local Nature Reserve part of the Kingfisher Country Park. The proposed ecological enhancements would compensate for the loss of part of the site and would provide significant ecological and biodiversity enhancements and not damage wildlife. This would include the following: • Retention and management of existing woodland to the north- eastern corner of the site; • Creation of ecological buffers across the site; • Creation of new wet woodlands and meadows; • New tree planting; • Creation of new habitat features for wildlife; • Improved pedestrian footpaths through site connecting to Babbs Mill Park • Natural Play features on site; In addition an obligation had been secured to pay a sum to the Council to provide a cycle path connecting the site to the Cole Valley Trail and to deliver and manage the enhancements for the next 30 years. Ecological surveys undertaken had not recorded any evidence of owls, badgers, great crested newts or reptiles on the actual development site boundary. In respect of bats, the site was not specifically protected for this species but was a forage area and any removal of trees would be undertaken utilising appropriate measures outside the nesting season. It was important to note that the Council’s Ecologist, the Warwickshire Wildlife Trust and Natural England welcomed the ecological enhancements proposed at planning application stage. In conclusion the benefits of the development were substantial including the provision of new housing, significant ecological enhancements benefitting wildlife and the local community and significant financial contributions to assist in regenerating North Solihull. 4. MINUTES The Cabinet received the minutes of the meeting held on 8 September 2016 for information. RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 8 September 2016 be received for information. 5. 100% BUSINESS RATES RETENTION PILOT 2 CABINET - 6 October 2016 The Cabinet was invited to amend the decision made at the September 2016 meeting relating to final sign up to the 100% Business Rates Retention Pilot. The Leader had agreed to take this late report due to its urgency. The Director of Resources and Deputy Chief Executive advised Members that since Cabinet had considered this issue on 8 September the West Midlands District Leaders considered a report on the 100% Business Rates Retention Pilot on 30 September and resolved: ‘That authority to conclude the negotiation of the detailed terms of the pilot and to establish the necessary local arrangements be delegated to Councillor Bob Sleigh, in consultation with Finance Directors via the Strategic Director – Finance & Legal of Birmingham City Council’. The delegation was sought from District Leaders because over the past few days, Officers had received further information about the pace at which discussions with the Department for Communities and Local Government would need to take place. The Government would need to commence the necessary legal process to implement the Business Rates Pilot by late October, which meant that there would not be time to bring a further report back to Cabinet to agree sign-up. Cabinet was asked to agree that the September decision be replaced with the following, with the words in italics deviating from the previous decision as set out in the minutes: ‘That an application for the West Midlands Combined Authority to be a pilot area for 100% business rates retention from April 2017 be supported, subject to the ‘no detriment’ principle being strictly applied at individual authority level and subject to final sign-up to the pilot being agreed by the Leader, Cabinet Member for Resources and Delivering Value and the Director of Resources & Deputy Chief Executive’. RESOLVED: That it be agreed that decision (iv) of minute 6 from the Cabinet meeting of 8th September 2016 be replaced with the following: “That an application for the West Midlands Combined Authority to be a pilot area for 100% business rates retention from April 2017 be supported, subject to the ‘no detriment’ principle being strictly applied at individual authority level and subject to final sign-up to the pilot being agreed by the Leader, Cabinet Member for Resources and Delivering Value and the Director of Resources & Deputy Chief Executive.” 6. NORTH SOLIHULL REGENERATION – PROPOSED DISPOSAL OF OPEN SPACE FOR LAND AT COOKS LANE, KINGSHURST 3 CABINET - 6 October 2016 The Cabinet was invited to consider objections and determine whether to dispose of public open space land at Cooks Lane, Kingshurst, following public notice advertisement as required by Section 123 (2A) Local Government Act 1972, to facilitate the delivery of the North Solihull Partnership (NSP) redevelopment proposals approved by Planning Committee on 2nd March 2016, application reference: PL/2015/52604. The Head of Strategic Land and Property reminded Members of the decision they had taken on 14 July 2016 to: (i) To make an intention to dispose of the public open space land under S123 2(A) Local Government Act 1972; and (ii) To de-declare the land as a local nature reserve under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. Formal public notice had been advertised for a period of two consecutive weeks in local newspapers, and in addition the North Solihull Partnership extended consultation by the use of information being issued by twitter, their website, and directly emailing consultees that had been notified to them previously during the planning application process. In total 88 objections had been received to the public notice and copies of each letter, along with an accompanying summary schedule, had been issued to all the Cabinet Members prior to the meeting for their consideration. Before making any decisions to dispose of the site Cabinet had to consider the objections received and determine whether the disposal of open space was justified. The objections had been summarised and categorised into six categories namely: Wildlife/habitat – risk of loss of fauna due to reduced habitat; Housing – concerns of high density housing in the locality, and affordability; Social/Community – concerns of loss of amenity space for all age groups; Environment – traffic, noise and pollution; Other – poor consultation; Health – reduced leisure use attributable to declining health and welfare. As well as the objections Cabinet also had to consider the purpose of the disposal, the policy issues in relation to Policy P20 and P10 and the replacement value all of which were detailed in the report. In considering the report a number of Members acknowledged the need for more housing, but questioned whether this was the right site. Members felt that the proposed mitigation measures did not go far enough to compensate for the loss of an important public amenity, they questioned how the loss of the site fitted in with the Council’s Healthy Life Style policy and the fact that nature cannot just be replicated half mile away. In responding the Cabinet understood the concerns and sentiment behind the objections, but careful consideration had been given to the size of the development, and following consultation the size of the development had been modified from 200 units to 52, and mitigation proposals incorporated in to the development. The Cabinet referenced the fact that all parts of the Borough had 4 CABINET - 6 October 2016 seen development and there was further need with thousands on the housing waiting list and the need to build at least 11,000 more homes. The Cabinet Member for Managed Growth clarified that the development did not involve the whole of the nature reserve being developed, and made reference to an answer he provided at a Council meeting on 13 October 2015 on this issue, and the points made then held true now. He felt that the Council had taken a responsible and proportionate action having gone through the Local Plan process, and involved experts.