COUNCIL

12 May 2008

MINUTES

Held at Council Chamber, Elizabeth House, Stratford-upon-Avon Meeting commenced: 2.00 pm meeting ended: 3.20 pm

Present: The Chairman of the Council (Councillor Stuart Beese) in the Chair

COUNCILLORS

V Seaman T Dixon L Marshall B Slaughter S Adams J Fradgley C Mills R Stevens J Appleton A Gardner P Moorse J Taylor G Atkinson S Gray E Payne S Thirlwell P Barnes T Honychurch D Pemberton L Topham P Beaman J Horner G Roache M Weddell Rev N Beamer S Jackson N Rock C Williams M Beckett K James K Rolfe D Wise M Brain Sir W Lawrence Bt C Saint S Wixey R Cheney S Main I Seccombe H Wright R Cockings B Mann P Seccombe

1089. Apologies for Absence

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors Akeister, Bowring, Close, R Hobbs, V Hobbs, Patrick and R Wright.

The Chairman welcomed to the meeting the new Councillors who had been elected to the Council at the Elections held on 1 May 2008, namely Councillors Atkinson, Cheney, Cockings, Honychurch, Horner, Mann, Rolfe and Taylor.

1090. Disclosure of Interests

Personal Interests were recorded by the following Councillors relating to any item on the Agenda arising from virtue of the members serving on the organisations indicated:-

1. As a County Councillor

Councillors Appleton, Barnes, Main, Saint, I Seccombe and Stevens

2. As a member of Stratford Local Strategic Partnership

Councillor Topham

3. As a member of Stratford Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership

Councillors Weddell and Williams

4. As a member of the Coventry, Solihull and Warwickshire Sub-Regional Forum

Councillors James and Topham

5. As a Director of the Coventry, Solihull and Warwickshire Partnership Limited .

Councillor Topham, together with Councillor Saint as a Warwickshire County Council appointee.

Councillor Minute Nature of Interest Type of Reference Interest P Barnes 1093 Chairman of WCC Planning Committee Personal M Brain 1093 Member of BARD Personal C Saint 1093 Director of West Midlands Regional Assembly Personal Limited, WCC Portfolio Holder on Planning Matters S Jackson 1093 As a member of an organisation that had Personal enabled BARD to participate in an event I Seccombe 1093 Member of BARD Personal P Seccombe 1093 Chartered Surveyor and his wife’s Personal membership of BARD

The Chief Executive made reference to representations that all Councillors had received from local interested parties in respect of the Eco Town proposals under Minute 1093 below.

1091. Public Participation (Questions by the Public)

In accordance with the Council Procedure Rules the following questions were asked by the person indicated:

1. The following question was asked by Mr. George West to the Leader of the Council, Cllr. Les Topham

'The Long Marston depot has suffered in the past from flooding. In July 2007 the surrounding villages of Long Marston, Broad Marston, Pebworth and Quinton all suffered badly from Flooding. Villagers are very anxious that the proposed development of an eco / new town on this site, with its many tonnes of concrete will increase greatly the flooding risk in all surrounding areas.

In these uncertain times with climate change bringing more frequent flood risks what assurance will The Council give that these real, concerns of householders with regard to flooding will be addressed?'

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Les Topham replied along the following lines:

“It is not just Long Marston, we get flooding all over the district and we are addressing this problem”.

2. The following question was asked by Mrs. Joan Mathews Chairman - Marston Sicca Parish Council, to the Leader of the Council, Cllr. Les Topham

th Appendix C of the Council papers published for 12 May meeting is a copy of a letter written to The Leader from Sir Simon Milton, Chairman of the LGA. He expresses concern over the Governments proposals for Eco Towns, which will by-pass normal planning processes.

He particularly expresses concerns, which I share with my community in Long Marston, that the ‘infrastructure and wider economic and social considerations for new settlements of up to 20,000 homes can be dealt with in this way. The government’s intended approach carries a strong risk that eco towns will not be the sustainable communities we all wish to see’.

He advises that the LGA will be mounting a vigorous campaign to persuade the government to drop its misconceived proposals, and asks Leaders to join in their campaign.

Can I request that Cllr. Topham will be writing to Sir Simon Milton offering Stratford District Council’s unconditional support on the LGA’s campaign to oppose the eco-town in Long Marston and support his National position?

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Topham replied along the following lines:

“I will be writing to Sir Simon Milton following the conclusion of this meeting.”

3. The following question was asked by Mr. Mike Walsby OBE Chairman Quinton Parish Council to the Portfolio Holder for Housing:

There is a common misconception amongst the general public that the term Affordable Housing means cheaper than houses currently available on the market, which people on low incomes would be able to afford. Environmentally friendly homes are in fact more expensive to build; so can you tell us in layman’s terms what is meant by the term Affordable Housing, and at the same time give us some estimates of likely prices that would be payable by these low income families?

The Revenues and Housing Services Portfolio-holder, Councillor Roache replied as follows: • The cost of any housing on the Long Marston site has not yet been determined.

• Affordable housing is for people who cannot afford to access open market housing i.e. owner occupation or private rented.

• In this district housing association homes for rent or shared ownership (part rent / part buy) homes are considered to be affordable housing.

• This definition of affordable housing accords with statutory Government guidance.

• Housing association rents are regulated by Government, and are well below market rates.

• Any “green” homes will be cheaper to run than conventional non- green homes.

4. The following question was asked by Mrs. Sue Cook - Chairman Parish Council to the Portfolio Holder for Transport

The Middle Quinton site is deep inside the Vale of Evesham HGV Control Zone. This was created because of the exceptionally poor local road network, bordered on the North West by the River Avon, on the East by the River Stour, and to the South by the Cotswold Escarpment however…

The DCLG consultation document states on page 29 that there are “no major issues regarding the strategic road network” – is this is because the site is nowhere near the strategic road network?

The developers state that they will create 3000 jobs on the site. But: You cannot exclude non – residents from applying for these jobs You cannot make employers only employ people from Middle Quinton

The majority of the 15000 plus population will be commuting to Birmingham, Coventry and other employment centres.

How will the local road network cope with what in reality be a very non- eco commuter town with large volumes of cars and HGVs entering and leaving the site on a daily basis?

The Planning Portfolio-holder, Councillor Thirlwell replied as follows:

I would agree with Mrs Cook that the statement in the consultation document that there are ‘No major issues regarding the strategic transport network.’ would appear to be a reflection of the remoteness of the site from the strategic road network (i.e. via C & B roads to A46 or A44).

Given the scale of the proposal and its location a robust and thorough Transport Assessment is a pre-requisite for any development to proceed on this site. Officers from the three highway authorities of Gloucestershire, Warwickshire and are well advanced in setting the scope for the Transport Assessment. Key elements of the assessment will include:

1. The likely trip generation by the development, including employment on the site.

2. The anticipated origin and destination of external trips.

3. The share for external trips between different modes of transport, e.g. public transport, and the private car. This would include a detailed assessment of the accessibility of the Middle Quinton site across all transport modes.

4. Detailed proposals for public transport provision and how this can be supported in the long term.

5. The traffic impact of the development at the date of full occupation, including for freight.

6. Proposed mitigation measures, including possible new road infrastructure, with sufficient feasibility study of the proposed measures to demonstrate their deliverability and cost.

Mrs. Cook should be assured that the Council will not support any proposal unless the Transport Assessment clearly demonstrates that the transport impacts of the proposed Eco-town can be successfully mitigated.

1092. Announcements

The following items were reported under this heading:

1. The Chairman belatedly welcomed the Councillor Paul Middlesborough the Leader of Wychavon District Council to the meeting;

2. The Chairman reported receipt of a petition signed by local residents opposed to the Eco Town Proposal and reported that it would be available in the Members’ Lounge after the meeting;

3. The Chief Executive reported receipt of letters from the following

a. Shakespeare Birthday Celebrations Committee thanking the Council for its continued support for the Celebrations; and,

b. Stratford Rotary thanking the Council for the use of the Recreation Ground for the recent Shakespeare Marathon and Half-Marathon event.

1093. Eco Town Proposal

The Leader of the Council read to the meeting a letter he had received from the Leader of Wychavon District Council outlining that Council’s observations on the Eco Town proposals. Councillor Topham reported that he would respond to the letter following this meeting of the Council detailing the decision.

Under this heading, consideration was given to a paper containing an analysis of the Eco Town proposals against the existing policy context which highlighted the issues that required further assessment, during which, the opportunity was given for Councillors to seek clarification from officers on its content.

On the invitation of the Chairman, the Monitoring Officer addressed the meeting and drew attention to the following paragraphs of the report:

7.1.2 The motion before Council invites, amongst other things, the Council to "oppose the proposal and confirm its support to local communities fighting to stop the site being placed on the final list”. As stated above, there is no reason in law why the council should not pass such a resolution if it so minded. However, members who may subsequently be called upon to determine a planning application in relation to the site must consider the risk of predetermination. An advice note was circulated at the last Council setting out what members can and cannot do in this regard and having considered this advice the members who may be in this position can take one of three courses of action: (1) If the member has genuinely made up their mind, they may participate in the debate and vote but should not seek to take any part in any subsequent planning meeting.

(2) If the member is minded towards a particular outcome based on the information available, but has not made up their mind, then they have the option, but not an obligation, to abstain. (3) If the member is minded towards a particular outcome based on the information available, but has not made up their mind then, subject to what is said in the following paragraph, they may debate the matter and take part in the vote. 7.1.3 In relation to option (3) the motion invites a definitive rejection of the proposals. By supporting this proposal without further qualification, members who may be involved in the planning decision may have given the appearance of predetermination. Accordingly, it is advisable for those members who fall within category 3 to set on the record that their participation and vote is based on the information currently available, but that they will reconsider the matter afresh on the basis of all available information at the planning committee. As previously advised, members who take this option must still avoid comments that are so forcefully in support or opposition to the proposal that regardless of the above statement, the reasonable member of the public would think that they had made up their mind once and for all. Having regard to the foregoing paragraphs and mindful of the fact that all Councillors could serve on a Planning Committee, the Chairman invited all those Councillors who had ‘made up their minds’ on the Eco Town Proposal to disclose that to the meeting arising from which the following Councillors Atkinson, Brain, I Seccombe and P Seccombe wished their names recorded. Following the above, the Notice of Motion in the names of Councillors I Seccombe and Brain, as contained in the Agenda for the meeting was then debated. It was then proposed by Councillor Appleton and seconded by Councillor Stevens that the following wording be substituted for the original motion: This Council regrets the government’s intention to impose a new Ecotown development on the residents of South Warwickshire, and urges the Minister of Housing to remove the Middle Quinton proposal from any further consideration. The proposal generates sustainability issues that cannot be addressed without levels of investment disproportionate to the town’s size, and an impact on the valued landscape of South Warwickshire, which would be unwelcome to residents and visitors alike. The proposal conflicts with the Planning Authority’s approved Local Plan, the allocations contained within the Regional Spatial strategy, and the moratorium on further development currently in force in Stratford-on-Avon District. The Council instructs the Chief Executive to write to the Minister of Housing expressing in the strongest terms the Council’s objection to an Ecotown at Long Marston, referred to as Middle Quinton. The points raised both in this Notice of Motion and in the debate are to be fully reflected in the Council’s response to the consultation due at the end of June. This response should be agreed with the Leader of the Council, the relevant local Ward Members, the Portfolio-holder for Planning and the Leaders of the other groups.

In accordance with the Constitution, a recorded vote was requested, following which, it was unanimously

RESOLVED:

That the motion detailed above be agreed and adopted.

(NOTE: The recorded vote was as follows: For the amendment 44 (namely the Chairman, the Vice-Chairman and Councillors Adams, Appleton, Atkinson, Barnes, Beaman, Beamer, Beckett, Brain, Cheney, Cockings, Dixon, Fradgley, Gardner, Gray, Honychurch, Horner, Jackson, James, Lawrence, Main, Mann, Marshall, Mills, Moorse, Payne, Pemberton, Roache, Rock, Rolfe, Saint, I Seccombe, P Seccombe, Slaughter, Stevens, Taylor, Thirlwell, Topham, Weddell, Williams, Wise, Wixey and H Wright.) Against the amendment 0.

1094. Matters for determination referred to Council

Standards and Ethics Committee – 24 April 2008

Minute 1067 – Appointment of Independent Member

RESOLVED:

(1) That the Council approves the appointment of Mr Edward Cook to the vacant position of independent member of the Standards and Ethics Committee and in view of the increasing workload of the committee it approves the appointment of Mr John Moody as an additional independent member; and,

(2) That if for any reason the above named withdraw their candidacy the Council approves the appointment of Mr Ian Brodie and Mr Michael Anslow in that order of preference.

This page has been left intentionally blank