SUMMONS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A MEETING OF THE HART DISTRICT COUNCIL WILL BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, CIVIC OFFICES, HARLINGTON WAY, FLEET ON THURSDAY 30 APRIL 2015 AT 7.00 PM
Joint Chief Executive CIVIC OFFICES, HARLINGTON WAY FLEET, HAMPSHIRE GU51 4AE
AGENDA
COPIES OF THIS AGENDA ARE AVAILABLE IN LARGE PRINT AND BRAILLE ON REQUEST
1 MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
To confirm the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 26 March 2015. Paper A
2 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
3 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
To declare disclosable pecuniary, and any other, interests.
4 CHAIRMAN’S AWARDS PRESENTATION
5 COUNCIL PROCEDURE RULE 12 – QUESTIONS BY THE PUBLIC
To receive any questions from members of the public submitted pursuant to Council Procedure Rule 12.
Note: The text of any question under Council Procedure Rule 12 must be given to the Chief Executive not later than Noon on Friday, 24 April 2015.
6 COUNCIL PROCEDURE RULE 14 – QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS
To receive any questions from Members submitted pursuant to Council Procedure Rule 14.
- 1 - Note: The text of any question under Council Procedure Rule 14.3 must be given to the Chief Executive not later than 5.00 pm on Monday, 27 April 2015.
The text of any question under Council Procedure Rule 14.4 must be submitted to the Chief Executive before 10.00 am on Thursday, 30 April 2015.
7 CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENTS
8 CABINET MEMBERS’ ANNOUNCEMENTS
10 CHIEF EXECUTIVE’S REPORT
11 MINUTES OF COMMITTEES
The Minutes of the following Committees, which met on the dates shown, are submitted.
In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 14.1, Members are allowed to put questions at Council without Notice in respect of any matters in the Minutes to the Leader of the Council or any Chairman of the relevant meeting at the time those Minutes are received by Council.
Meeting Date Page For Decision Numbers Overview and Scrutiny 17 March 27-29 Standards 18 March 1-2 Minute 6 - Constitution (see item 12 below) Audit 24 March 9-11 Cabinet 2 April 39-43 Planning 8 April 140-145 Minute 74 - Proposed Leisure Centre (see item 15 below)
12 ADJUSTMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION
To recommend adjustments to the Council's Constitution to enable issues experienced during last year to be addressed. The issues relate to the election of a Leader and Cabinet; the authority delegated to officers to instigate legal proceedings; and an adjustment be made to Contract Standing Orders (CSOs) to reflect new Regulations. Paper B
RECOMMENDATION
1 Paragraphs 7.4 and 7.5 of the Council's Constitution be amended in accordance with the wording recommended in Appendix 1 of this report
2 All reference to "In consultation with Chief Solicitor" be removed from the Officer Scheme of Delegation as identified in Appendix 2
- 2 -
3 The Joint Chief Executives be authorised to amend Contract Standing Orders (CSOs) to remove all reference to Pre-Qualification Questionnaires (PQQ's) for anything except OJEU (Official Journal of the European Community) procurements with an additional insertion about using the national portal 'Contracts Finder' for any contacts above £25k.
NB Para 25.1 of the Constitution states that ‘Any motion to change the Constitution will, when proposed and seconded, be referred without discussion to the next ordinary meeting of the Council.’ This item was proposed and seconded at the Council meeting of 26 March 2015.
13 CHANGE TO STANDING ORDERS
The purpose of this report is to agree to a statutory change to Standing Orders to reflect a new regime for the disciplining and dismissal of senior staff. Paper C
RECOMMENDATION
That Standing Orders be amended to give effect to the new arrangements for the disciplining and dismissal of senior staff as set out in the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 (SI 2015/881)
NB Para 25.1 of the the Constitution states that ‘Any motion to change the Constitution will, when proposed and seconded, be referred without discussion to the next ordinary meeting of the Council.’ This item will therefore be considered at the next ordinary meeting of the Council on 25 June 2015.
14 CLIMATE LOCAL
To provide information on the Local Government Association’s Climate Local Commitment; a voluntary statement where the Council can demonstrate commitment to working on climate change issues locally. Paper D
RECOMMENDATION 1 That Hart District Council agrees to support the Climate Local initiative and signs up to the declaration, set out in Appendix 1.
2 That Hart District Council agrees to support the Joint Hampshire Climate Local Commitment 2015/16 with specific projects, as outlined in Appendix 2.
3 That Council notes the further actions planned to engage the community and stakeholders in promoting climate change and developing the action plan.
15 PROPOSED LEISURE CENTRE
To inform members of the recommendation of Planning Committee regarding the proposed leisure centre at Edenbrook, Hitches Lane, Fleet and to seek approval for the reserved matters application. Paper E
- 3 - RECOMMENDATION
The Head of Regulatory Services be authorised to grant permission, subject to the proposed planning conditions and a receipt of satisfactory noise impact assessment.
Date of Despatch: 21 April 2015
- 4 -
COUNCIL
Date and Time: Thursday, 26 March 2015 at 7.00 pm
Place: Council Chamber, Civic Offices, Fleet
Present:
COUNCILLORS –
Billings - (Chairman)
Ambler Forster S Parker Bailey Gorys Radley JE Bennison Kennett Radley JR Blewett Leeson Southern Butler Makepeace-Browne Woods Clarke Morris Collett Neighbour Crookes Oliver
Officers Present:
Daryl Philips Joint Chief Executive Alison Cottrell Committee Services
90 MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
The Minutes of the Meeting held on 26 February 2015 were confirmed and signed as a correct record.
91 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Axam, Burchfield, Cockarill, Crampton, Forster P, Harward, and Wheale.
92 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
No declarations were made.
93 FLEET POND PRESENTATION
A presentation was given by Mr. Colin Gray, Chairman of the Fleet Pond Society, to update Members on the latest restoration progress at Fleet Pond.
A short question and answer session followed.
Members heard about the problems with silting around the pond, planned progress for the future, together with the new species now visiting and nesting around the
CL.115
pond. There was also a discussion about the condition of the access road and the need for it to be improved. Funding options could be explored.
94 COUNCIL PROCEDURE RULE 12 – QUESTIONS BY THE PUBLIC
Details of questions received and responses given are set out in Appendix 1of these Minutes.
95 COUNCIL PROCEDURE RULE 14 – QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS
No questions received.
96 CHAIRMANS ANNOUNCEMENTS
The Chairman had attended the following events on behalf of the Council.
4 March Community Safety Awards, Princes Hall, Aldershot 21 March Ocean Stars 10th Birthday buffet supper at The Key centre, The Key, Elvetham Heath 24 March Hart Civic Day
The Vice Chairman attended the following events on behalf of the Council:
4 March Community Safety Awards, Princes Hall, Aldershot 9 March Hampshire County Council - Commonwealth Affirmation & the Charter of the Commonwealth - The Great Hall, Winchester 11 March Mayor of Eastleigh Civic Day at Pavilion on the Park, Eastleigh 13 March New Forest Charity Dinner at Balmer Lawn Hotel in Brockenhurst 17 March Christ Church, Church Crookham - Inauguration of new Vicar. Gally Hill Road, Church Crookham GU52 6LH 21 March Ocean Stars 10th Birthday buffet supper at The Key centre, The Key, Elvetham Heath 24 March Hart Civic Day
The Chairman announced that the Hart Civic Day was a really successful day that had been enjoyed by all.
97 CABINET MEMBERS ANNOUNCEMENTS
The Leader of the Council, Councillor Parker, thanked the Chairman for inviting him to the Civic Day to assist with hosting. He stated that Mayors and Chairmen from other authorities had enjoyed seeing the rural nature of Hart and the quality of life that is enjoyed here. All had agreed that they understood why we are the nicest place to live.
He further announced the following, on behalf of the Cabinet Member for Community Wellbeing, Councillor Crampton.
Last week we held an Ageing Well Forum here in the Council chamber. We heard from the Bobby Scheme about how they can help the elderly and vulnerable stay safe in their own homes.
CL.116
The Bobby scheme provides practical help to elderly or vulnerable people including those who have been or are at risk of becoming, victims of crime or anti social behaviour in or near their homes.
Help includes making minor repairs after a burglary, fitting security chains, window locks or spy holes, providing crime prevention advice, the installation of smoke alarms and providing fire prevention advice. All these services are at no cost to the individual.
At a time when quite a few of us are knocking on doors, could we just pass on this information to any of our residents who could benefit from this scheme.
They can be contacted by phone or e mail, telephone number 0300 777 0157 or e- mail [email protected]
The Cabinet Member for Regulatory Services, Councillor Collett, announced:
Building Control I am pleased to announce that after much negotiation good progress is now being made towards the merger of our Building Control function with Rushmoor Borough Council. The main purpose of this merger from our point of view is to give us greater resilience at a time when a lot of this work is being done by private sector Approved Inspectors. This is expected to be cost neutral for us, although Rushmoor may make a small saving as they move towards our ways of working and accounting. It will mean that we can not only maintain our reliability into the future, but also improve our service and make it more attractive for those who are currently opting for the private sector.
Community Safety Partnership The PCC, Simon Hayes, has now authorised the merger of the Hart, Rushmoor and Basingstoke & Deane Community Safety Partnerships into a new North Hampshire Strategic CSP. An initial informal meeting of the new body took place on 13th March to discuss draft Terms of Reference and a Memorandum of Understanding, prior to the formal launch of the Partnership in June. This merger of the CSPs, of course, follows the successful merger of our officer teams two years ago.
Police Response and Patrol Members may have heard about plans for the Police Response and Patrol teams covering the Hart area to be based in Rushmoor in future. Whilst this sounds mildly alarming, it will actually give us greater resilience in future as teams from other districts will be more available as backup when our own local Response teams are tied up dealing with an incident.
In order to create this joined up approach, and indeed contribute to the financial savings that the Constabulary have to achieve, the Response and Patrol Teams (formerly known as Targeted Patrol Teams, or TPT) need to be based in fewer locations.
CL.117
Apart from the improvements in resilience, this will make very little difference on the ground as Police Patrol Cars do not wait in police stations until they get a call, they spend most of their time out and about patrolling our community. Frankly, where those officers reporting for work to collect their vehicle from has little relevance to how well they are able to patrol our area.
There has been some suggestion that this will mean that Yateley Police Station will now close. I can assure members that the current Estate Strategy of the Police and Crime Commissioner sees Yateley Police Station remaining in place as a relatively new building which is inexpensive to run. It is likely that other police functions will occupy the vacant space in the building.
With regard to the Police moving into our own Council Offices, I understand that this is now scheduled to take place in June, when they will be based on the ground floor where the housing team have been situated.
The Cabinet Member for Economic Development and Corporate Finance, Councillor Crookes, announced:
That Members would have seen the recent note from Councillor Burchfield (copy below) as Chairman of Hart's Audit Committee that once again demonstrates that Hart continues to be well run financially.
“We had an Audit meeting on the 24th March in which our auditor, Ernst and Young, presented its external audit grants claim for 2013/14. For those of you unfamiliar with this audit, this looks at our Housing Benefit subsidy claims (about a £15M allocation of money to Hart which is then distributed to those making a housing benefit claims). The result was that EY found Hart to be one of the best run Councils when it comes to the distribution and audit trails of housing benefit. This means we had no qualification letter presented to us by our external auditor, nor any claw-back of subsidies (which if I were to put a percentage on it, 95% of all other Councils are presented with a qualification letter and have to pay back some of the subsidies distributed to them by DWP). Additionally, this also means that we had no extra external audit fees, no follow up required from DWP and no wasted internal man hours auditing these subsidies. I would like to congratulate our internal team, officers and Capita for the great work here. It was a good feeling to be recognised by the external auditor in this way - long may it continue”.
The Cabinet Member for Environment, Councillor Oliver, announced that he had attended the LGA Climate Local conference on 23rd March and discussed Hart's potential joining of the scheme as the 101st council member. Cabinet will consider a report recommending joining the Climate Local initiative (and the wider HCC community initiative) on the 2nd April with an initial set of objectives based on Hart's corporate plan and priorities. If Cabinet accept the recommendation it is the intention to hold a member and other interested parties meeting in July to develop Harts environmental targets and programme for the coming year.
I was also pleased to say that the Bin collection round changes (5000+ households) were implemented in February with a minimum of disruption. This was in stark contrast to the changes rolled out in November 2013 and is testament to the hard work of our waste management team and the positive working relationship now
CL.118
enjoyed with Veolia, our waste collection contractor. This is the culmination of the Hart Strategic Action Plan put in place for this contract early in 2014 and previously reported on to this council. The contract and action plan will be subject to scrutiny by the relevant committee post the elections in May
The Cabinet Member for Housing, Councillor Neighbour, announced that the Housing Team had now relocated to the first floor of the Civic Offices.
The Cabinet Member for Corporate Services, Councillor Radley JE, announced that the advertisement has gone out in regards to inviting bidders to respond to our joint procurement initiative with our partners (Vale of White Horse, South Oxfordshire, Mendip and Havant). As of last Friday there had been 143 expressions of interest. The process of sifting has already commenced, including a 'meet the bidders' session scheduled for next Wednesday.
98 JOINT CHIEF EXECUTIVES’ REPORT
The Joint Chief Executives’ report is attached as Appendix 2 to these Minutes.
99 MINUTES OF COMMITTEES
Meeting Date
Overview and Scrutiny 17 February
No questions asked.
Cabinet 5 March
No questions asked.
Planning 11 March
No questions asked.
Minute 68 14/02539/FUL – Rotherwick House, The Street, Rotherwick, Hook, RG27 9BL. The application was brought to Committee as a DEPARTURE because the site lies outside the settlement boundary of Rotherwick and in that respect is contrary to Local Plan Policy RUR2.
The Planning Committee considered that although a DEPARTURE to the Local Plan and approved policy, there was no overall harm to the open countryside and that the proposal complies with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Statement.
Since no request to debate had been received this Departure to the Local Plan was deemed to be ACCEPTED
CL.119
100 UPDATES TO THE CONSTITUTION
Paper B detailing proposed adjustments to the Council’s Constitution to enable issues experienced during 2014 to be addressed should similar circumstances arise in the future.
RESOLVED
Under Council Procedure Rule 25, it was agreed that this item would be referred without discussion to the next Council meeting on 30 April 2015
The meeting closed at 7.58 pm
CL.120
Appendix 1 QUESTIONS BY THE PUBLIC
Questions from Mr David Turver
Questions for Hart Council Regarding Local Plan
I would like to ask the following questions at the council meeting on 26 March 2015
Planned Housing Density on Brownfield and other sites
The analysis of the results of the FOI request1 about brownfield sites showed that the council doesn’t have a very robust approach to identifying and analysing brownfield sites in the district. However, further analysis also shows that the council adopts a rule of thumb for housing density of around 30 dwellings per hectare (dph). However, a study by a local architecture student2 has shown that in urban areas a planning density of around 250dph can create vibrant communities. This kind of metric could be applied to brownfield sites in both Hart and neighbouring districts such as Surrey Heath and Rushmoor. For instance, the Aldershot Barracks site could take all of Rushmoor’s entire requirement and maybe some of Hart’s too. Moreover, Hart District’s overall housing requirement of 7,534 dwellings would require ~251 hectares of land at 30dph, but only 30 hectares of land at 250dph. Building at a
1 http://wehearthart.co.uk/2015/02/hart-district-council-has-no-brownfield-strategy/ 2 http://wehearthart.co.uk/2015/03/rushmoor-could-take-all-of-harts-allocation-and-more/ CL.121
higher density would mean that a site such as Hartland Park could theoretically take Hart’s entire allocation.
Question: What is Hart District Council’s strategy for applying pressure to for instance Rushmoor to build at a higher density on the Aldershot Barracks site?
Answer: I do not necessarily accept the points made in the preamble, but I will answer the substantive questions. Aldershot Urban Extension was granted planning permission in 2013 for 3850 dwellings. It is not lawfully available to Rushmoor Borough Council to withdraw that consent, and thus time and resources spent in that regard would be a waste of public money. If the developer were to seek a fresh consent at a higher density consistent with good planning, we will look at it on its merits but I suspect we would support it.
However, we have objected to Rushmoor’s Masterplan for the Farnborough Civic Quarter on the basis that they should explore greater housing densities. We have made sure that their SHLAA will be subject to an independent validation exercise to ensure it has been prepared in line with national planning guidance.
We will look at the SHLAA ourselves to see if there is scope for them to increase their densities or bring more sites in.
Question: What steps are Hart DC taking to investigate building at higher density on brownfield sites to protect our valuable green fields avoid urban sprawl?
Answer: Hart is examining all sites with a view to maximising densities, again where consistent with good planning. However, Mr. Turver’s contributor is proposing a very high density. Viability guidance considers densities of 80dph for urban mixed development; even for urban flatted development it is only proposing 160dph. We might approach these levels for town centre sites, but beyond that it would amount to the construction of purpose designed slums. However, to boost the supply of housing on brownfield sites Hart has written to local agents that are advertising office space in Hart to invite their owners to consider residential use. This includes sites at Ancells Farm, the offices on Fleet Rd and Bartley Wood, Hook. We are also talking to the owners of Hartland Park to see whether that can be made available for housing.
Planning for the Ageing Population Hart District Council it has a duty to meet the needs of many groups in society. Para 50 of the NPPF states: “local planning authorities should…plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends, market trends and the needs of different groups in the community (such as, but not limited to, families with children, older people, people with disabilities, service families and people wishing to build their own homes)” Over the course of the plan period up to 2032, there will be an extra 10,000 people over 60, including more than 6,850 over 75, expected to be living in the district and an extra 3,620 people who will be suffering from dementia or have some sort of mobility problem. This will lead to a demand for additional specialist accommodation for older people. Let’s assume on average there’s 1.5 older people per dwelling because so many live on their own. That would be 6,850/1.5 = 4,566 units. Not all of them will want to leave their existing homes and some may go and live with family. So, let’s say we need half that number of new
CL.122
dwellings. That’s in round numbers 2,280 units. This assumes that all of the extra people with a mobility problem are also aged over 75. Now let’s look at supply. Of the 7,500 houses we need to build up to 2032, around 3,500 have already been given planning permission, which leaves a balance of around 4,000. Of the 3,500 some are specialist units for the elderly – I know of a Churchill and McCarthy and Stone development in Fleet which will total around 100 units. This leaves around 2,180 units to find for the elderly. If we were to build a new town and deliver around 2,000 units (this is much lower than the Barratts vision document) in the plan period, then this would leave around 2,000 units still left to grant planning permission for elsewhere. As can be seen, if we build the new town, we will not meet the needs of the ageing population unless all of the remaining units are specialist units for the elderly and thus run the risk of the local plan being found unsound.
Question: What are the council’s plans to meet the needs of the ageing population in the local plan?
Answer: The preamble to this question based it on a chain of speculative assumptions. The Strategic Housing Market Assessment specifically addressed the issue of specialist housing and constitutes an evidence based assessment, on which we can rely and which discussed the matter of projected accommodation needs for the elderly in considerable detail. We will also be seeking discussions with Hampshire County Council Social Services to help them deliver their aspirations for the elderly, for example more Extra Care accommodation.
Hart would seek to provide for specialist housing in any substantial settlement, particularly where the services the occupants might require are provided as part of the infrastructure. But I would also expect accommodation for the elderly in its various forms to be provided at other settlements too. Examples include higher density schemes like the Churchill one on Fleet Rd/Branksomewood Rd, and the care village such as that being completed in Yateley.
CL.123
Infrastructure Costs
According to council documents3, there is a current funding gap of around £78m for infrastructure in the district, not including the infrastructure requirements of a new town nor additional healthcare provision. Surrounding districts are also under pressure to build thousands of new houses in the plan period which will generate additional journeys within Hart because of identified work patterns. Question: What additional CIL or S106 funding might the council expect to receive for building the additional 4,000 or so houses not already given planning permission? Answer: Experience shows that willing party negotiations achieve significantly better results than those resulting from contested planning applications granted at appeal. That said, Hart has yet to finalise its CIL regime.
Question: How will the amount of money vary according to the development strategy adopted (e.g. New Town versus Strategic Extensions versus Dispersal)?
Answer: CIL is likely to vary with the part of the district where it is located, and this is a function of the financial viability of building in those areas. S106 depends substantially on the specific needs of the location in question. For example, Dilly Lane, now called St Mary Park, in Hartley Wintney, required works to facilitate access to the A30 funded by S106 whereas another development may not have such a requirement. Whichever strategy is selected there will be a combination of CIL receipts, and on-site infrastructure secured through S106. The balance between these two will vary – a new settlement strategy would generate greater S106 on-site provision of infrastructure and less CIL revenue. A dispersal strategy would generate more CIL revenue than on-site provision.
Question: How will the infrastructure requirement and costs vary according to the development strategy adopted?
Answer: The requirement and costs will vary according to the site rather than the strategy. Discussions are currently taking place with key infrastructure providers and relevant agencies (e.g. Hampshire County Council, Thames Water, Environment Agency, Highways Agency, Network Rail) to establish the infrastructure issues that need to be addressed for all the different strategic sites, including Winchfield.
3 http://wehearthart.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Hart-DC-Infrastructure-Delivery-Schedule-October- 2014-Part-A-v2.pdf CL.124
Question: What analysis is Hart carrying out to evaluate the impact on Hart’s infrastructure of rising population in neighbouring districts?
Answer: All the principal infrastructure providers are either statutory consultees or discretionary ones who we will ensure are consulted. They are aware of pressures on them from other districts and will take those pressures into account when responding to Hart. Further, neighbouring authorities are governed by the Duty to Cooperate, and we will make appropriate arrangements with them.
Question: How will Hart DC factor into its analysis the varying funding requirement and availability of alternative development strategies?
Answer: The process of testing the major sites including but not limited to those in the current preferred strategy includes an assessment of the infrastructure requirements of all of those sites set against the viability tests performed in accordance with guidance.
The Council is currently trying to establish the infrastructure requirements associated with different strategic sites, whether or not they are viable once affordable housing requirements are factored in, and whether supporting infrastructure would be best secured via S106 or through CIL. This is Part 2 of the Cabinet paper 8th January 2015. This will be part of the information that will inform decisions on which sites should be allocated in the plan.
Supplementary Questions
Supplementary: In your answer you concede that 160dph is an achievable density. If a 150dph density to existing brownfield sites in the SHLAA, the 700 dwelling capacity could be increased to 3,500 dwellings. Adding on the additional capacity from the new sites identified in your answer such as Ancell’s Farm and Bartley Wood would mean that the entire 4,000 residual requirement could be met by brownfield development. Does this now mean that the council can turn down controversial proposals such as Grange Farm and abandon entirely the idea of a new town?
Answer: Sadly the answer is no, the reason being that until you have sites that are available in terms of the NPPF you cannot take those sites into account. The issue that we are dealing with is the permitted development for office blocks which allows the owner to convert the existing structure into flats. We are unable to stop him doing it even if we do not like the density. We might consider the higher density approach in one or two of the town centre developments in Aldershot, but in Fleet, where commercial buildings are three or four storeys high, densities as high as 160dph would be out of place and difficult to get through due to the street scene.
In relation to Bartley Wood, the developer may get five storeys but I do not see it likely that the landowner would do that. It would be quicker to turn a profit on the permitted development rights he currently has.
The chance of getting to those high densities is not good but I would love it if we did not have to do anything on green fields.
CL.125
Supplementary: I was disappointed to see that you characterised my calculations as speculative. This evening I spent a happy half hour examining the final version of the SHMA4 and established that between 2012 and 2030, Hart needs to provide 1,390 specialist units for the elderly and infirm. Extending this back to 2011, and out to 2032 at the 80dpa rate identified in the report would give 1,630 units. To this must be added the 940 registered care places. This gives a total of 2,590 additional units for the ageing population. The SHMA also says5 that the council must “provide attractive options in areas where households currently live and where they have social and community ties”. It is also true that specialist developers such as McCarthy and Stone and Churchill only build on brownfield sites to ensure their residents are close to local amenities. It is clear that building a new town will crowd out the development required to meet the needs to the ageing population. So, the question remains, what are the council’s plans to cater for the ageing population and what are this risks of being found unsound through failure to plan for this?
Answer: The chances of being unsound is low for that reason that the SMA takes account of the elderly population and it is built into the housing figures. The new town, if we were to do it, would have facilities that elderly people need. If, as is more likely, that we had a system of satellite villages around a centre, they would take a share of the provision for the elderly with elderly relatives of younger people moving into the settlement. Guidance from Government about provision for the elderly makes it very clear that we provide facilities they need in their existing homes rather than putting more people into specialist accommodation.
Supplementary: The original Local Development Scheme (LDS) for the local plan called for a draft local plan to be ready by now for a Regulation 18 consultation in March 2015. That consultation has now been dropped in order to save time. However, from answers to questions over a number of months, it is clear the council is nowhere near having a draft plan in place: • There is no vision • There is no effective brownfield strategy • There is no plan for dealing with the ageing population • The council has no idea how much the infrastructure for its plans is going to cost, nor where the money is going to come from • The governance is questionable in that the portfolio member for planning is reporting to himself as leader of the council and the officer in charge of planning is reporting to himself as chief executive • Whoever writes Hart News6 doesn’t know how many houses have to be built by 2032.
It is clear that the project is off track and behind schedule. What steps are being taken to bring the project back on track?
Answer: It is on the track we have set. Consultation at Regulation 18 stage provides no added value according to the careful advice we have taken from the Planning Inspector. I would not accept that we are not on track and don’t accept the premise of the supplementary question. We have been carefully planning all the way through. The Planning Policy Manager reports to the Chief Executive and it is common for the Leader of Council to have a portfolio in addition to his office. In any event, all elected members are accountable to the ward electorates they represent. None of this
4 http://wehearthart.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/HRSH-SHMA-Final-Report-141219.pdf Figure 10.15 5 http://wehearthart.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/HRSH-SHMA-Final-Report-141219.pdf para 10.21 6 http://wehearthart.co.uk/2015/03/hart-district-council-gets-its-facts-wrong-on-the-local-plan/ CL.126
is out of court; it is normal, natural and conducive to the production of the plan and that is what we intend to do.
CL.127
Appendix 2
Joint Chief Executives’ Report
Mr Phillips announced that he had recently been elected onto the Chief Executives part of the District Councils Network. Network as a South East England representative from June 2015. Ms. Hughes is carrying out other work to enable election onto the LGA.
The Watery Lane Planning Appeal is scheduled for April 2015 and is listed for eight days, but could now be less. He indicated that he had been grateful for support from Crookham Village Parish Council and FACEIT and indicated that if members were interested in learning of an informed, rather than recent uniformed speculation, debate about land supply and how the calculations take place for the purpose of what Government expects us to have, then it would be beneficial to attend.
CL.128 PAPER B
COUNCIL
DATE OF MEETING 30 APRIL 2015
TITLE OF REPORT ADJUSTMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION
Report of Monitoring Officer
1. PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1 The purpose of this report is to recommend adjustments to the Council's Constitution to enable issues experienced during last year to be addressed. The issues relate to:
1.1.1 the election of a Leader and Cabinet; 1.1.2 the authority delegated to officers to instigate legal proceedings; and 1.1.3 an adjustment be made to Contract Standing Orders (CSOs) to reflect new Regulations.
2 OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
2.1 Paragraphs 7.4 and 7.5 of the Council's Constitution be amended in accordance with the wording recommended in Appendix 1 of this report
2.2 All reference to "In consultation with Chief Solicitor" be removed from the Officer Scheme of Delegation as identified in Appendix 2
2.3 The Joint Chief Executives be authorised to amend Contract Standing Orders (CSOs) to remove all reference to Pre-Qualification Questionnaires (PQQ's) for anything except OJEU (Official Journal of the European Community) procurements with an additional insertion about using the national portal 'Contracts Finder' for any contacts above £25k.
3 BACKGROUND
3.1 The Council's Constitution frames how the Council is run. The Constitution’s rules and procedures go to the heart of decision making. Changes should not be made lightly. However, there are times when adjustments are required particularly where recognised good working practices are hampered by over rigid Constitutional limitations. Sometimes adjustments are simply required to bring the Constitution up to date or to clarify what was meant in the Constitution.
4 COMMENTARY
4.1 Appointment of Leader
The resignation of the Leader at the end of last November created a number of issues particularly with regard to the term of office and also how this related to Cabinet. The pragmatic decision was made to appoint an interim Leader until next Annual Council.
1 PAPER B
Under section 44E of the Local Government Act 2000, the Council was required to appoint its Leader for up to a 4 year term of office. It was prescriptive. What it did not deal with was the implication that arises if a Leader resigned in mid term - what was the term of office for the successor Leader? The question being, is any new Leader an interim until the next Annual Council or do they have a 4 year term in their own right? The Council's current Constitution, which was drafted in accordance with what was at the time required under the 2000 Act, can be argued either way.
Section 44E has since been repealed by the Localism Act 2011. Many Councils have since used the permissive powers in section 9I of the 2000 Act (as inserted by the 2011 Act) to make provision for the term of office of the Leader to be linked to his/her term of office as a Councillor. For a newly elected Councillor that would be for a period of up to 4 years but for an existing serving Councillor the time range would be shorter. That is a far more pragmatic and clearer approach and certainly would have removed any uncertainty last December.
It is recommended that the wording attached at Appendix 1 be adopted. The issue for discussion however, is what happens if both the Leader and the Deputy Leader resign or, if the Leader is removed by Council but not replaced at the same time. How is the executive function of the Council to be run in the interim? The existing Constitution is silent on this point.
The proposal as drafted in Appendix 1 would give some clarity. Firstly, it introduces a specific requirement to hold a Leadership election at the first opportunity (the current Constitution is silent on this point). Secondly, it allows Cabinet to continue to function for a short time in the interim if both the Leader and the Deputy Leader resigned; and thirdly it puts in place executive arrangements with the Head of Paid Services working with Group Leaders to administer the Executive functions of the Council for a short period in the theoretical event that there was no Leader, Deputy Leader, or Cabinet. This would prevent the Executive function of the Council being otherwise effectively paralysed.
4.2 Scheme of Delegation
The Council will on regular occurrences seek to instigate legal proceeding such as taking people to Court for breaches of Planning Enforcement Notices, felling of TPO trees etc. Power is delegated to Officers to take such action. This is set out in the scheme of delegation to Officers contained in the Constitution. It allows legal proceedings to be taken but in some instances this can only be done following consultation with the Chief Solicitor.
It transpires however, the approach to consult first with the Chief Solicitor in many instances is impracticable and cannot be followed. For example, in practical terms the Scheme of Delegation adversely effects urgent action that needs to be taken in the following day-to-day cases:
• Environmental Protection Act - seeking a warrant from a JP to take immediate action to abate a noise disturbance such as a house or car alarm.
2 PAPER B
• Emergency Prohibition Order - Under the Food Safety Act to obtain an order to ensure a commercial food premises remains closed where an imminent risk of injury to health exists (there is a 3 day timescale following the service of a notice on these so not as urgent).
• Obtaining a warrant to gain access to premises to seize & detain unfit or illegal foodstuffs.
• Seizure of a dog under the Dangerous Dogs Act - may need to be immediate depending on the nature of the offence.
Shared Legal Services see no legal or practical reason in any instance to require consultation first with the Chief Solicitor, and agree that the current wording of the Scheme of Delegation to Officers is both impractical and superfluous. It is not needed for day-to-day activities and indeed it undermines and frustrates any need to take urgent action.
The specific reference where the current requirement to consult are set out in Appendix 2. The recommendation is that all reference to any requirement to consult first with the Chief Solicitor (in the areas as set out in Appendix 2) before instigating proceedings, should be removed.
Whilst not an issue for the Constitution itself, it would be good practice for Officers to endeavour to keep local Ward District Councillors informed of any significant action taken within their Ward.
4.3 Contract Standing Orders
Contract Standing Orders (CSOs) form part of the Council’s Constitution. The CSOs apply to all contracts (except contracts of employment) for the supply of services, goods and works entered into by the Council. CSOs have three main purposes:
(a) to ensure that the Council obtains value for money from procurement, so that in turn it may offer best value services to the public; (b) to comply with the laws that govern the spending of public money; and (c) to ensure procurement is carried out fairly and transparently.
Changes are required as a result of new Regulations. The Public Contracts Regulations 2015 are now in force for all procurements commenced on or after 26 February 2015. The Regulations were brought in on an expedited timetable. From 1 April all contracts over £25k in value where the Council is tendering, must be advertised on the national portal 'Contracts Finder'. Also, with immediate effect, Pre- Qualification Questionnaires (PQQs) are forbidden for any lower value (i.e. ones that don't have to go to OJEU) tenders. This effectively means the Council will not be able to have a first step filtering exercise for anything it advertises under OJEU.
This in its most simplistic form requires CSOs to be amended to remove all reference to PQQ's for anything except OJEU procurements with an additional amendment about using Contract Finder for any procurement above £25k.
3 PAPER B
5 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
There are no financial implications if the proposed changes are agreed.
6. ACTIONS
Council agrees the proposed adjustments.
Contact Details: Daryl Phillips, x4492, [email protected]
4 PAPER B
APPENDIX 1
Leader
The Leader will be a Councillor elected to the position of Leader by the Council. The Leader will hold office until: 1. The day when the Council holds its first annual meeting after the end of the Leader’s term of office as a Councillor; or 2. He/she resigns from office; or 3. He/she is suspended from being a Councillor under Part III of the Local Government Act 2000 (although he/she may resume office at the end of the period of suspension); or 4. He/she ceases to be a Councillor before the end of his/her term of office as a Councillor including as a result of statutory provisions; or 5. He/she is removed from office by resolution of the Council.
If for any reason the Leader is unable to act the Deputy Leader must act in his/her place.
Procedures if the Leader Ceases to Hold Office for Whatever Reason
If the Leader ceases to hold office as mentioned in paragraphs (2), (3) or (4) above the functions of the Leader shall be discharged by the Deputy Leader until the election of a new Leader. In these circumstances, if an ordinary meeting of the Council is not scheduled to take place within the following 25 working days, an extraordinary meeting of the Council shall be held within 15 working days in order to elect a new Leader.
The exception to this is that if the Leader resigns within 3 months of the date of the next scheduled annual meeting the functions of the Leader will be discharged by the Deputy Leader until a new Leader is elected at that next scheduled annual meeting.
Procedure if the Leader and Deputy Leader both cannot Act or both Cease to Hold Office for Whatever Reason
If for any reason the Leader is unable to act, or the office of the Leader is vacant and the Deputy Leader is unable to act, or the office of Deputy Leader is vacant, the Cabinet must act in the Leader’s place or must arrange for a Member of the Cabinet to act in his/her place.
In the event of there being no Leader, Deputy Leader or Cabinet Members, executive functions shall in the interim be carried out by the Head of Paid Services in consultation with Group Leaders.
Procedures following Resolution of the Council to Remove the Leader from Office
If the Council resolves to remove the Leader from office and unless a new Leader is elected at the same meeting, the following procedures will be followed:
• An extraordinary meeting of the Council shall be held within 10 working days to elect a new Leader.
5 PAPER B
• Until the election of a new Leader, the executive functions of the Cabinet shall be discharged by the Head of Paid Services in consultation with Group Leaders.
Appointment of Cabinet
The Cabinet will consist of no fewer than three and no more than ten Members (inclusive of the Leader of the Council). Appointments to the Cabinet will be made by the Leader.
The precise number of Cabinet members, allocation of portfolios and term of office are for decision by the Leader and shall be set out in writing, except that the term of office may not extend beyond the third day after the expiry Leader’s term of office as a Councillor. The Leader shall designate one of the Cabinet Members as Deputy Leader.
Other Cabinet Members
Other Cabinet members shall hold office until: 1. The expiry date of a fixed term specified by the Leader when appointing them; or 2. They resign from office; or 3. They are suspended from being Councillors under Part III of the Local Government Act 2000 (although they may resume office at the end of the period of suspension); or 4. They are no longer Councillors; or 5. They are removed from office by the Leader, such a decision to be set out in writing and to have immediate effect; or 6. The day on which the Leader is removed from office by resolution of the Council.
6 PAPER B
APPENDIX 2
HART DISTRICT COUNCIL CONSTITUTION
Part 3C
Scheme of Delegation to Officers
May 2011 (updated January 2014April 2015)
For Index see page 101
7 PAPER B
GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. Officers having delegated powers each have a power of sub-delegating those powers to a nominated Officer or Officers to such extent as they shall determine, but the officer granting the sub-delegation shall remain responsible for any decision taken by the nominated officer. Each sub-delegation shall be made in writing, a copy of which shall be provided to the Monitoring Officer.
2. In this Scheme a reference to any statute, regulation (whether domestic or EU), EU directive, or Code of Conduct, or Practice, issued by any body discharging a public function, includes any subsequent amendment or replacement.
3. Exercise of delegated powers is without prejudice to the right of the Council, the Chief Executive or the body or person granting delegated powers to withdraw or amend any such delegation, and the person with a delegated power may decline to exercise it and refer the decision to the appropriate Committee, Cabinet or Cabinet Member or other authorised Officer.
4. In addition to these delegated powers, powers may also be exercisable by officers through Financial Regulations Contract Standing Orders, and as elsewhere set out in the Council’s Constitution.
5. Delegated powers shall be exercised in accordance with Standing Orders, Financial Regulations and any other guidance given by the Council, the Chief Executive, the Chief Financial Officer or the Monitoring Officer. Any expenditure shall be within the appropriate budgetary provision and otherwise in accordance with this paragraph and (save for emergency expenditure) delegated powers shall be so limited.
6. Where a delegated power is expressed to be exercisable after consultation with the Chairman of a Committee, or a Cabinet Member, and in the absence of that Chairman or Cabinet Member the consultation shall take place with the Vice-Chairman (where appropriate) the Leader of the Council, or the Deputy Leader.
7. Any variation to the proper or customary procedure will not of itself make ineffective any action or decision taken in good faith by an Officer in the exercise of his delegated authority.
8. For the effective discharge of Council business the Chief Executive and in his absence any Corporate Director (after consultation with the Monitoring Officer or his deputy) may determine the interpretation and scope of provisions in the Constitution generally and of the delegated powers in this Scheme and such determination when reduced into writing shall be conclusive. A copy of each such determination shall be given to the Monitoring Officer.
8.9. Officers should keep Ward Councillors informed of significant action proposed or taken in relation to their Ward
8 PAPER B
Ref Function Delegated Power, Duty or Officer(s) No Responsibility granted Delegation
60 Environmental Responsibility for exercising the Council’s Chief Executive, Health powers and duties including any related any Corporate enforcement actionand recovery of costsin Director, or Head respect of the following: of Regulatory • Prohibition or restriction of the Services importation, use, supply or storage of injurious substances or articles, or potentially hazardous substances. • Contaminated land including maintenance of public registers of land, which may be contaminated, determinations, and enforcement of clean up. • Powers in respect of light pollution causing a nuisance. • Power to appoint inspectors and authorised persons for the purposes of legislation related to environmental protection enforcement. • Oil Pollution including acting as the District Oil Pollution Officer. • Provision of a dog control serviceand the waiving or reducing of charges for returning a dog to its owner including, after consultation with the appropriate Portfolio Holder and relevant Ward Member, the designation of dog control areas and powers to deal with stray dogs. • The promotion of health including health education training and the making of appropriate charges for such training. • To approve or refuse registrations, licences, certificates, permits or consents and to take any other action in respect of the following businesses operating within the District: Hairdressers and barbers, acupuncturists, tattooists, ear piercers, electrolysists, animal boarding establishments, riding establishments, dog breeding, pet shops, guard dogs, dangerous wild animals, and zoos. • Powers in respect of the quality of drinking water supplies, bathing waters,
9 PAPER B
Ref Function Delegated Power, Duty or Officer(s) No Responsibility granted Delegation
and swimming pools. • After consultation with the Chief Solicitor pPower to institute legal proceedings and to represent the Council in appropriate Environmental Health cases. • The ability to issue, refuse, vary, revoke and impose conditions on any licence in relation to Scrap Metal Dealers.
68 Environmental Responsibility for exercising the Council’s Chief Executive, Health powers and duties including any related any Corporate enforcement action and recovery of costs in Director, or Head respect of noise and noise nuisance from of Regulatory domestic commercial or industrial premises, Services vehicles, machinery or equipment in the street including: • after consultation with the appropriate Cabinet Member and relevant Ward Members, the determination of applications for prior consent in respect of construction work; • the determination of acceptable noise levels for new buildings • the power to seize equipment; • the power to grant consent for the use of loudspeakers in the street outside the period 8am to 9pm; and to enforce legislation relating to alarms; • after consultation with the Chief Solicitor power to apply for High Court injunctions in relation to noise nuisance.
111 Housing After consultation with the Chief Solicitor, Chief Executive, power to authorise legal proceedings for any Corporate prosecution of offences arising from the Director, or Head unlawful eviction or harassment of residential of Housing occupiers.
114 Housing & Power to make and act on decisions Chief Executive, Council Tax & regarding the following: any Corporate Non-Domestic • payment of Housing and/or Council Tax Director, or Chief Rates Benefits Benefit to applicants in accordance with Financial Officer the Social securityActs, and the Housing Benefit and Council tax Benefit
10 PAPER B
Ref Function Delegated Power, Duty or Officer(s) No Responsibility granted Delegation
regulations, and determination of representations from applicants dissatisfied with any decisions • investigation of suspected cases of fraud and authorising prosecution proceedings, after consultation with the Chief Solicitor. • classification and recovery of overpaid Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, including authorisation of court proceedings in line with Council Write Off Policy, after consultation with the Chief Solicitor. • the completion of all statutory and necessary Housing Benefit Subsidy and related returns in accordance with regulation.
159 Planning Power, after consultation with the Chief Chief Executive, Solicitor, to authorise the institution of legal any Corporate proceedings for failure to respond to, or to Director, or Head give satisfactory information required by of Regulatory Requisitions for Information, or Planning Services Contravention Notices.
160 Planning Power, after consultation with the Chief Chief Executive, Solicitor, to determine who shall be called to any Corporate give evidence at planning inquiries Director, or Head of Regulatory Services
174 Planning Power to authorise the issue of: Chief Executive, • Enforcement Notices, any Corporate • Stop Notices, Director, or Head • Temporary Stop Notices, of Regulatory • Breach of Condition Notice Services • Listed Building Enforcement Notices • Conservation Area Enforcement Notices, • Section 215 Notices under the Town and Country Planning Act 19990 • Hazardous Substances Enforcement Notices, and • Discontinuance Notices under the Control of Advertisement Regulations.
11 PAPER B
Ref Function Delegated Power, Duty or Officer(s) No Responsibility granted Delegation
after consultation with the Chief Solicitor to the Council.
176 Planning Power, after consultation with the Chief Chief Executive, Solicitor to authorise the institution of legal any Corporate proceedings in respect of any matter within Director, or Head the terms of reference of the Planning of Regulatory Committee. Services
184 Property & After consultation with the Chief Solicitor, Chief Executive, Asset Power to submit applications for planning any Corporate Management permission, listed building consent and other Director, or Head necessary consents in respect of of Technical • Any works included in the Capital or Services Revenue programme • Any other matter, which has been agreed after consultation with the leader of the Council and the relevant Ward Member(s).
190 Property & After consultation with the Chief Solicitor, Chief Executive, Asset Ppower to authorise the taking of action, any Corporate Management including legal proceedings, for the recovery Director, or Head of rent arrears or the possession of land or of Technical other property in cases of non-payment of Services rent or other breaches of the terms of leases or licences.
200 Property & Power, after consultation with the Chief Chief Executive, Asset Solicitor, to take any action, including court any Corporate Management proceedings, required in respect of trespass Director, or any to the Council’s property; Head of Service acting within their Service
201 Property & Power, after consultation with the Chief Chief Executive, Asset Solicitor, to authorise the taking of action, any Corporate Management including legal proceedings, for the recovery Director, or any of rent arrears or the possession of land or Head of Service other property in cases of non-payment of acting within their rent or other material breaches of the terms Service of leases or licenses.
214 Staffing Issues After consultation with the Chief Solicitor, Chief Executive or Ppower to seek external legal advice specific any Corporate
12 PAPER B
Ref Function Delegated Power, Duty or Officer(s) No Responsibility granted Delegation
to the Council’s Human Resources function. Director
240 Statutory Issues After consultation with the Chief Solicitor, Chief Executive, Ppower to administer formal cautions within any Corporate the guidelines set out in Home Office Director, or any (Circular 59/1990 or any new guidelines from Head of Service time to time issued by the Home Office), and acting within their the agreed codes and procedures of the Service Council
13 PAPER C COUNCIL
DATE OF MEETING 30 APRIL 2015
TITLE OF REPORT CHANGE TO STANDING ORDERS
Report of Monitoring Officer
1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to agree to a statutory change to Standing Orders to reflect a new regime for the disciplining and dismissal of senior staff.
2 OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
That Standing Orders be amended to give effect to the new arrangements for the disciplining and dismissal of senior staff as set out in the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 (SI 2015/881).
3 BACKGROUND
3.1 Every local authority is being obliged by the Government to take a report to its first Council meeting after its Annual Meeting in May 2015, to amend its Standing Orders to make changes to the procedure for disciplining and dismissing senior officers.
3.2 This follows from the publication of finalised new regulations on local authorities' disciplinary procedures for removing a senior officer. The Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 (SI 2015/881) require local authorities to amend their Standing Orders to incorporate the new arrangements for taking disciplinary action against the most senior council staff. This modification must be made by the first ordinary council meeting held after the 7 May 2015 elections.
4 CONSIDERATIONS
4.1 Early in 2013 the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) wrote to a limited number of stakeholders seeking their views on draft Amendment Regulations that would remove the requirement for a Designated Independent Person (DIP) to investigate allegations of misconduct by senior local government officers in England.
4.2 The Government's rationale for these changes was that the existing DIP process was bureaucratic and time-consuming, and that it often led to authorities making inflated severance payments to senior officers in order to avoid taking the costly DIP route.
4.3 It therefore proposed that any decision to dismiss top staff was to be taken by full Council, and that full Council would be required to consider any report about the proposed dismissal which a panel drawn from members of the Council’s Independent Remuneration Panel thought fit to put before the council.
4.4 Respondents raised concerns about the dilution of the protection of statutory officers, who may be required to make unpopular statutory reports, and about the 1
PAPER C skill set of the panel members, and the detailed prescription about how the panel might operate. It was suggested that the Independent Persons appointed under s.28(7) of the Localism Act 2011 would be better placed than members of the IRP to fulfil the role of the proposed new panel, given that their role related to the consideration of disciplinary matters.
5 THE GOVERNMENTS' FINAL REGULATIONS
5.1 The Government has broadly accepted this suggestion, and it has also accepted that the proposed process should be simplified.
5.2 The finalised Regulations now provide that where the final decision to dismiss any statutory officer (and not just the Head of Paid Service as now) must be taken by full Council, before taking that decision, Council must invite at least two Independent Persons to be members of a Panel, and Council must take into account any recommendation of that Panel before taking a final decision to appoint or to dismiss.
5.3 The invitations should be sent in accordance with the following priority order: i) an Independent Person who has been appointed by the council and who is a local government elector; ii) any other Independent Person who has been appointed by the council; and iii) an Independent Person who has been appointed by another council or councils.
5.4 The Regulations provide that the Panel is to be a committee of the authority and so it is subject to all the legal requirements for committees, including the proportionality rules.
5.5 It is not intended that full Council itself carries out the disciplinary hearing so this will have to be delegated from Council to the relevant committee, sub-committee or officer – this could be the same Panel, although the regulations are unclear about who will have responsibility for doing so – and then report to full Council with their recommendation, which would include the views of the Independent Persons.
5.6 To ensure that the new process will not involve high costs, the Regulations limit the remuneration that should be paid to Independent Persons on the panel to the level of the remuneration which they would normally receive as an Independent Person in the conduct regime, i.e. a modest annual allowance or small meeting fee.
6 ACTION
6.1 The Council is obliged to now modify Standing Orders to give effect to the new arrangements.
6.2 Whilst the Monitoring Officer may have delegated powers to amend the Constitution to take account of changes of fact and law, this is required to be incorporated in Standing Orders, and under the Local Government Act 1972, only "the authority" may change Standing Orders. So Council must approve the changes. The Regulations require that this be done at the first ordinary Council meeting held after the 7 May 2015 elections.
Contact: Daryl Phillips, x4492, [email protected] 2
PAPER D
COUNCIL
DATE OF MEETING 30 APRIL 2015
TITLE OF REPORT CLIMATE LOCAL
REPORT OF Joint Chief Executive
1 PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1 To provide information on the Local Government Association’s Climate Local Commitment; a voluntary statement where the Council can demonstrate commitment to working on climate change issues locally.
The Overview and Scrutiny Committee would have considered this at their meeting on 21 April 2015. Because of the timing of the issue of papers, the Committee’s comments have not been included. Any comments or recommendations will be reported to Council verbally.
2 OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
2.1 That Hart District Council agrees to support the Climate Local initiative and signs up to the declaration, set out in Appendix 1.
2.2 That Hart District Council agrees to support the Joint Hampshire Climate Local Commitment 2015/16 with specific projects, as outlined in Appendix 2.
2.3 That Council notes the further actions planned to engage the community and stakeholders in promoting climate change and developing the action plan.
3 BACKGROUND
3.1 Hart District Council has a long history of supporting initiatives to reduce the impact of climate change, having signed up to the Nottingham Declaration, and moved forward with a number of initiatives both inside and outside the authority.
3.2 Climate Local is an overarching declaration to deliver on local plans. It succeeds the Nottingham Declaration on Climate Change and offers a framework that can reflect local priorities and opportunities for action. It supports councils' efforts both to reduce carbon emissions and to improve their resilience to the anticipated changes in the climate.
3.3 Through the voluntary initiative, councils make local commitments to take action based on local priorities, such as supporting jobs, addressing fuel poverty and promoting energy efficiency measures to protect vulnerable residents from rising energy prices and safeguarding communities from the impacts of flooding and heat waves.
3.4 Climate Local supports local authorities in the following ways: • Provides a platform owned and led by councils, to promote activity on climate 1
PAPER D
change and demonstrate leadership locally and nationally. • Supports councils to share good practice and identify councils undertaking similar initiatives, to support joint working and the sharing of experience and ideas. • Provides practical tools and advice to councils to climate change issues. • Raises the profile of carbon reduction and adaptation nationally.
3.5 As part of the opportunity to share good practice, and support joint working, there is also scope to develop and publish a joint set of Climate Local Commitments for some or all Local Authorities and Public Sector organisations in Hampshire.
3.6 Kent and Oxfordshire have already successfully taken this approach, publishing a set of joint commitments involving a range of Local Authority and Public and Private Sector Partners.
3.7 Having Climate Local Commitments for Hampshire would have the following advantages: • Help to ensure a co-ordinated approach and provide an additional driver to tackle climate change through shared priorities. • Contribute to building capacity around carbon reduction and climate resilience across the Hampshire Public Sector. • Realising efficiencies through shared learning and working where appropriate. • Showcase action on climate change across Hampshire to a national audience. • Enhance our role as Community Leaders to influence and help communities and business to reduce their carbon emissions and build their resilience to climate impacts. • Build an evidence base for future individual and shared working.
4 CONSIDERATIONS
4.1 A Climate Change Declaration supports the Council’s Corporate Plan key priority of Environment with contributions from many of the initiatives, such as increasing recycling rates by 1% per annum and as part of the consideration of the new Leisure Centre, a range of different environmental opportunities are being explored.
4.2 However, the declaration also provides a broader framework to inspire the Council to further develop opportunities, providing leadership on the issue of climate change, across the district .Therefore the proposed declaration both confirms the environmental credentials of the existing corporate plan tasks as well providing further stretching targets.
4.3 Joining in with the Hampshire wide Climate Local Commitment provides further opportunities for joint working, increasing efficiencies and sharing best practice.
4.4 Once we have signed-up to either of these initiatives, we will need to report on our performance so care needs to be taken to ensure that the commitments are realistic and deliverable.
2
PAPER D
5 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
5.1 There are some financial implications of a number of initiatives outlined on the Hampshire Joint declaration, however, subject to the requirements of the scheme of delegation, further reports would be submitted to Cabinet for approval.
6 ACTION
6.1 Further to signing the Climate Local Declaration and the Joint Hampshire Climate Local Commitment, a meeting of key Hart stakeholders will be established during July 2015 which will aim to • Consult on the action plan ensuring they are deliverable and stretching targets • Promote activity of climate change locally • Seek partnerships on climate change at a local level.
6.2 Additionally, the Council would engage with the public sector partners across Hampshire within the Joint Hampshire Climate Local Initiative, to establish where we can work together
6.3 Performance will be monitored through the addition to service plans (and monitoring through Service Boards), with a review in line with service planning, at the end of the year.
Contact: Patricia Hughes, Corporate Director, x4450, [email protected]
APPENDIX
Appendix 1 - Climate Local Hart District Council Appendix 2 - Joint Hampshire Climate Local Commitments 2015/16
3
PAPER D
Appendix 1 Climate Local Hart District Council:
Our commitment to taking action in a changing climate
We recognise that our council has an important role to help our residents and businesses to capture the opportunities and benefits of action on climate change. These include saving money on energy bills, generating income from renewable energy, attracting new jobs and investment in ‘green’ industries, supporting new sources of energy, managing local flood-risk and water scarcity and protecting our natural environment.
We will progressively address the risks and pursue the opportunities presented by a changing climate, inline with local priorities, through our role as:
• Community leader – helping local people and businesses to be smarter about their energy use and to prepare for climate impacts;
• Service provider – delivering services that are resource efficient, less carbon intensive, resilient and that protect those who are most vulnerable to climate impacts;
• Estate manager – ensuring that our own buildings and operations are resource efficient, use clean energy, and are well prepared for the impacts of a changing climate.
In signing this commitment, we will:
• Set locally-owned and determined commitments and actions to reduce carbon emissions and to manage climate impacts. These will be specific, measurable and challenging;
• Publish our commitments, actions and progress, enabling local communities to hold us to account;
• Share the learning from our experiences and achievements with other councils; and
• Regularly refresh our commitments and actions to ensure they are current and continue to reflect local priorities.
Signature of Leader – Cllr Stephen Parker
Hart District Council Date:
4
PAPER D
Appendix 2: Joint Hampshire Climate Local Commitments 2015/16
Low carbon pathways In order to create an ‘energy smart’ low carbon future we make the following commitment(s):
Commitment: We will work to reduce carbon emissions from our estates and services and staff travel through energy efficiency, renewable energy sources, waste management and recycling and encouraging behaviour change in our colleagues and partners. Justification: These actions will help us to save money, reduce our carbon emissions, increase energy security and encourage a sustainable approach across our organisations. Organisation(s) Specific Project or Action Partners Targets Achievements to date Basingstoke & North Hampshire NHS Foundation Trust Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council Eastleigh Borough Council East Hants District Council Environment Agency Fareham Borough Council Gosport Borough Council Hampshire Constabulary Hampshire County Council Deliver carbon savings through Carbon emissions To date 105,000 CMS implementation of streetlight will be reduced from nodes (streetlights) have dimming policy as part of 2010 been fitted which will Hampshire Street Lighting PFI. baseline of 26,000 make a total of 150,000 metric tonnes to nodes by the end of 19,000 p/a March 2015. Complete the final CO2 consumption has installations of fallen by 30% from April Central Management 2010 to end March System lighting 2014. nodes 6 month programme of
5
PAPER D
to complete a total of light dimming also taking 150,000 by March place to be completed 2015. by September 2015. Ongoing monitoring testing of new street lighting. New LED technology still being installed. Rolling programme of sign de- illumination for some 4,500 street signs by 2017/18. This work programme will begin in 2015/16. Hampshire Fire & Rescue Hart District Council Establish a carbon reduction Target to be Research into options target for the Civic Offices established in for LED lighting has and explore the opportunity consultation with been completed and a to reduce carbon for stakeholders at the report to Cabinet for instance, through the LED meeting in July funding is due to be lighting schemes. submitted. Havant Borough Council Highbury College New Forest National Park Authority NHS Hampshire Portsmouth City Council Portsmouth NHS Rushmoor Borough Council Southampton City Council
6
PAPER D
Southampton Solent University Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust Test Valley District Council University of Portsmouth University of Southampton University of Winchester Winchester City Council
Commitment: We will work to encourage and support communities and businesses across Hampshire to save money and reduce their carbon emissions through adopting energy efficiency and renewables. Justification: Energy affordability, efficiency and security are key to ensuring that Hampshire’s communities and businesses are able to thrive in a sustainable manner. Organisation(s) Specific Action: Partners: Targets Achievements to date Basingstoke & North Hampshire NHS Foundation Trust Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council Eastleigh Borough Council East Hants District Council Environment Agency Fareham Borough Council Gosport Borough Council Hampshire Constabulary Hampshire County Council Develop proposals for a University of Winchester, Full report and Original feasibility reports District Energy Scheme Hampshire County business case for completed, funding in Winchester, which will Hospital, Winchester City Cabinet complete application for £144k
7
PAPER D
reduce carbon emissions Council. by June 2015. successful, detailed from public sector technical feasibility tender estate. spec published July 2014. Hampshire Fire & Rescue Hart District Council Develop proposals to Target to be PV has been investigated use renewable energy established in for the new Leisure Centre sources across the consultation with and forms part of the Councils estate and stakeholders at the planning application. implement a grey meeting in July Initial work on establishing water recycling and whether PV can be composting scheme at installed onto the Civic Edenbrook Country Offices has also been Park, which can be carried out and further used to promote and investigative work will be encourage similar carried out before bringing schemes within the this to Cabinet for local community. approval.
We will encourage local businesses to make a pledge to only buy sustainable timber products (where available) Havant Borough Council and East Hants District Council Highbury College New Forest National Park Authority NHS Hampshire Portsmouth City Council Portsmouth NHS
8
PAPER D
Rushmoor Borough Council Southampton City Council Southampton Solent University Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust Test Valley District Council University of Portsmouth University of Southampton University of Winchester Winchester City Council
Climate resilience In order to adapt to the risks and opportunities that our changing climate will present, we make the following commitment(s):
Commitment: We will work to identify the risks and increase the resilience of our organisations to climate and severe weather impacts such as flooding, drought, storms etc. Justification: Hampshire’s Climate is changing; we must prepare and adapt our buildings and services to build their resilience to the impacts of climate change. Organisation(s) Specific Action: Partners Targets Achievements to date Basingstoke & North Hampshire NHS Foundation Trust Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council Eastleigh Borough Council Environment Agency Fareham Borough Council Gosport Borough Council Hampshire Constabulary
9
PAPER D
Hampshire County Council Continue to embed climate N/A Hampshire County Key policies and change adaptation measures Council and its procedures such and considerations throughout services are resilient Strategic Asset the policies, processes and to the impacts of a Management Plan and daily work of HCC. changing climate. Corporate Decision Making Report Templates now include adaptation. HCC wepages developed to provide a ‘one stop shop’ of information on adaptation for all staff. Communications activity undertaken to promote this. Also working with colleagues in Public Health to incorporate climate change considerations in JSNA and Fuel Poverty Strategy for Hampshire. Hampshire Fire & Rescue Hart District Council Continue to embed climate Local community Target to be change adaption measures groups established in within the work of Hart consultation with including developing stakeholders at the wildflower planting schemes meeting in July where opportunities exist to provide more species rich
10
PAPER D
habitats to help protect biodiversity and climate resilience. Havant Borough Council and East Hants District Council Highbury College New Forest National Park Authority NHS Hampshire Portsmouth City Council Portsmouth NHS Rushmoor Borough Council Southampton City Council Southampton Solent University Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust Test Valley District Council University of Portsmouth University of Southampton University of Winchester Winchester City Council
Commitment: We will work to build resilience in communities and businesses across Hampshire to the impacts of a changing climate, including severe weather events such as flooding, heatwaves and drought etc. Justification: Hampshire’s climate is changing, we must work together to help build the resilience and wellbeing of Hampshire’s communities and businesses to ensure their health and wellbeing and contribute towards a sustainable economy. Organisation(s) Specific Action: Partners: Targets Achievements to date Basingstoke & North Hampshire NHS Foundation Trust
11
PAPER D
Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council Eastleigh Borough Council Environment Agency Fareham Borough Council Gosport Borough Council Hampshire Constabulary Hampshire County Continue delivery of Amey Ongoing Up to date information on current Council Operation Lafarge Tarmac programme of works can be accessed Resilience to make here: more of http://www3.hants.gov.uk/roads/operation- Hampshire’s roads resilience resilient to the effects of extreme weather and ‘futureproof’ the network. Hampshire Fire & Rescue Hart District Council Continue to Thames Water Ongoing Updates are reported via Cabinet provide specialist Parish and Town updates. flooding resource Councils to help Hart Environment Agency continue to improve resilience to ‘extreme’ weather working in partnership with stakeholders
12
PAPER D
Havant Borough Council and East Hants District Council Highbury College New Forest National Park Authority NHS Hampshire Portsmouth City Council Portsmouth NHS Rushmoor Borough Council Southampton City Council Southampton Solent University Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust Test Valley District Council University of Portsmouth University of Southampton University of Winchester Winchester City Council
Appendix 1 – CLIMATE LOCAL DECLARATION
1. Investigate a PV scheme of the roof of the Civic Offices
2. Establish a carbon reduction target for the Civic Offices and explore the opportunity to reduce carbon for instance, through the LED lighting schemes.
13
PAPER D
3. Implementation of a composting scheme at the new Edenbrook Country Park
4. Explore a renewable energy scheme to power the new Edenbrook Country Park Visitor Centre
5. Look into a grey water-saving scheme to provide water to flush toilets at the Edenbrook Country Park Visitor Centre
6. Investigate Electric vehicles for the countryside management service.
7. Develop wildflower planting schemes where opportunities exist to provide more species rich habitats help protect biodiversity against the backdrop of a changing climate (Hart Biodiversity Action Plan 5.3.1)
8. Develop and support a pond creation scheme across the district where opportunities exist to provide more species rich habitats help protect biodiversity against the backdrop of a changing climate (Hart Biodiversity Action Plan 5.3.2)
9. Increase recycling rates by 1% year on year (current target) .
14
PAPER E COUNCIL
DATE OF MEETING: 30 APRIL 2015
TITLE OF REPORT: PROPOSED LEISURE CENTRE
Report of: Head of Regulatory Services
Cabinet member: Councillor Adrian Collett
1 PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1 To inform members of the recommendation of Planning Committee regarding the proposed leisure centre at Edenbrook, Hitches Lane, Fleet and to seek approval for the reserved matters application.
2 OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
2.1 That the Head of Regulatory Services be authorised to grant permission, subject to the proposed planning conditions and a receipt of satisfactory noise impact assessment.
3 BACKGROUND
3.1 On 8 April 2015 members of the planning committee considered a reserved matters application for the proposed leisure centre and sports pitches at Edenbrook, Hitches Lane, Fleet.
3.2 Planning permission for the provision of a leisure centre has already been granted. Therefore, as a reserved matters application, the deliberations of the Planning Committee were limited to the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of the proposal; this included the impact of the proposal on its surroundings, the layout of the pitches and general landscaping and the adequacy of the parking provision.
3.3 Members of the Planning Committee agreed that the application be referred to Full Council with a recommendation that the Head of Regulatory Services be authorised to Grant permission subject to the receipt of a satisfactory noise report and conditions proposed in the planning officer’s report. A copy of this report is shown in Appendix 1.
4 CONSIDERATIONS
4.1 Full Council is required to consider the reserved matters application and the recommendation of the Planning Committee.
4.2 The appropriateness of the facilities mix does not form part of the planning assessment because it has already been considered in detail by the Leisure Centre Working Group and reflects the Core Scheme agreed by Council in 2013 and then reconfirmed by Council in July 2014. Full Council also received a presentation in November 2014 and responded positively to the proposal.
1 PAPER E
5 CONCLUSION
The opinion of the planning officer was that the details submitted as part of the Reserved Matters Application, are acceptable and accord with the terms of the outline permission. The appearance would constitute an innovative, well designed, high quality response architecturally to its setting and countryside location, utilising appropriate materials for a large building of this type. Planning Committee ratified the officer recommendation in April 2014.
Contact Details: Nick Steevens, x4296, [email protected]
APPENDICES Appendix 1 - 15/00392/REM Reserved Matters application pursuant to planning permission 13/02513/MAJOR
2 PAPER E Appendix 1
COMMITTEE REPORT ITEM NUMBER: 101 APPLICATION NO. 15/00392/REM LOCATION Edenbrook Hitches Lane Fleet Hampshire PROPOSAL Reserved Matters application pursuant to planning permission 13/02513/MAJOR for: 'Outline application for the erection of 193 dwellings, including 50 extra care flats, leisure centre and sports pitches, extension to Hitches Lane Country Park, plus associated parking, access, highways, infrastructure and landscaping works' for the provision of a new build leisure centre, with 4No. 5-a-side all weather pitches, 1No. floodlit 3G football pitch, 2No. Junior turfed football pitches and ancillary car park and landscaping.
APPLICANT Hart District Council CONSULTATIONS EXPIRY 20 March 2015 APPLICATION EXPIRY 19 May 2015 PLANNING COMMITTEE Cllr Richard Woods WARD MEMBER RECOMMENDATION Refer to Full Council with recommendation to Grant Planning Permission
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright 2000. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Please Note: Map is not to scale
3
PAPER E Appendix 1 Ground floor plan
4
PAPER E Appendix 1
First floor plan
5
PAPER E Appendix 1
Proposed north elevation
6
PAPER E Appendix 1 Proposed east elevation
7
PAPER E Appendix 1 Proposed south elevation
8
PAPER E Appendix 1
Proposed west elevation
9
PAPER E Appendix 1
Site plan overview
10
PAPER E Appendix 1
Site plan overview, area around building
11
PAPER E Appendix 1
Planning permission has been granted for this development - 13/02513/MAJOR. This application is a Reserved Matters application only, submitted on behalf of the Council, seeking approval of the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of the new leisure centre and sports pitches element of the outline planning permission granted for land at Edenbrook, Hitches Lane last year.
The recommendation is that the application should be referred to the Full Council with a recommendation that the Head of Regulatory Services be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the submission of an acceptable noise report.
The reasons why the Reserved Matters are considered to be acceptable are that the proposal would deliver a high quality, well designed, replacement leisure facility constructed to meet national sporting standards that would be of significant benefit to the wider community and that the impact of the development on neighbouring and visual amenity would not give rise to demonstrable harm on any interests of acknowledged importance.
BACKGROUND
Outline planning permission was granted in September 2014 for 193 dwellings, including 50 extra care flats, a new leisure centre and sports pitches, an extension to the Hitches Lane Country Park, plus associated parking, access, highways, infrastructure and landscaping works on land at Edenbrook, Hitches Lane, Fleet (13/02513/MAJOR). This development is to be constructed in three separate phases. The housing and Country Park elements of the scheme, including the provision of affordable housing, will be constructed by Berkeley Homes (Southern) Limited and are subject to a current Reserved Matters application (reference number 15/00154/MAJOR) received on 21 January 2015. The new Foul Water Pumping Station will be constructed by contractors appointed by Thames Water Utilities Limited. The last element is the subject of this Reserved Matters application and relates to the new leisure centre and associated facilities, including sports pitch provision, to be constructed by a contractor on behalf of the Council.
The principle of the development and all the access and other arrangements were agreed through the outline permission. Only appearance, landscaping; layout and scale were reserved.
THE SITE:
The application site forms the southern section of the 47.32 hectare area site that was the subject of the outline planning permission referred to above. The site is located to the west of Hitches Lane between Jack Reid's Copse to the south and existing residential properties in the earlier phase of the Edenbrook development, in Blackthorn, Foxtails and Willowbourne, to the north. The site lies opposite the existing Hart Leisure Centre facility and Calthorpe Park School which are to the east of Hitches Lane.
The River Hart runs roughly north-south to the west of the site and the Jack Reid's Copse Site of Importance for Nature Conservation lies close to the southern boundary. Part of the site is currently in use as a contractors compound in association with the construction works being undertaken at Calthorpe Park School.
12
PAPER E Appendix 1
THE PROPOSAL:
This application seeks approval of the Reserved Matters - appearance; landscaping; layout; and scale - in respect of the leisure centre and sports pitches element of outline planning permission 13/02513/MAJOR.
The proposal would provide a part single, part two-storey leisure centre building of 6,316 square metres Gross Internal Floor Area (GIA) located toward the northern boundary of the site, with a car parking areas, providing 228 spaces (plus an overspill area of 101 spaces), 6 coach parking spaces; 20 cycle spaces and 4 motorcycle bays located to the north, east and southeast of the building adjacent to Hitches Lane and the realigned access road to the site. To the south of the leisure centre building and main car park would be located the outdoor pitches comprising 1 x floodlit full UEFA sized fenced artificial grass pitch; 4 x floodlit 5-a- side fenced artificial grass pitches; 2 x intermediate natural turf pitches; 2 x 16-person outdoor changing facilities; 1 x referees changing area; 1 x external all user toilet and an external storage area. The rest of the site would be landscaped with areas of mounding and drainage facilities (swales).
The proposed building would be formed of three distinct but connected units. These would be angled so as to exploit daylight the way each different sports activity requires, which is intended to cut down energy consumption. One unit would contain the sports hall, which would face south west to absorb heat (thermal mass). The perimeter single storey stores to this block would also act as external viewing terraces over the 5-a-side pitches and the park. The central element would be for fitness and studios (first floor) and administration (ground floor). The fitness suite would face north which would provide the entry feature on approach into the site, would have an orientation which would minimise glare and solar gain into the cooled space and would also allow users to look out into the landscape and surrounding parkland.
The third block would cover the swimming pools and associated changing space. The large pool would look out onto the main approach into the site. The glazing would face north to minimise glare on the pool surface.
The traffic generation implications of the development were fully considered at the outline stage (where the access arrangements were approved) and are not a matter for consideration at this Reserved Matters stage because they have already been agreed.
The detailed Design & Access Statement submitted with the application confirms how the layout of the proposal has been designed to facilitate easy access by all modes, including by pedestrians, cyclists, cars and coaches as well as service vehicles.
Members are reminded that the proposed vehicular access to the leisure centre development would be provided via the western arm of the new roundabout junction on Hitches Lane. This currently provides access to the existing school (east), the Country Park (west) and Old Hitches Lane. The roundabout junction has been designed to DMRB standards and has undergone operational capacity assessments to ensure that there is sufficient capacity to accommodate the planned development. This has all already been agreed.
13
PAPER E Appendix 1 To enable pedestrian access at this point footways have been provided, linking with the existing footways on Hitches Lane.
CONSULTEES RESPONSES
Fleet Town Council:
No objection, subject to the traffic issue being addressed.
Environmental Health (Internal):
Lighting – No objection but request a condition be imposed on any permission granted to require the submission of isolux diagrams and illumination calculations base on the actual lighting products to be used on site.
Noise – Whilst broadly content with the type of assessment carried out, concerns have been raised regarding the detail of the assessment. Further background survey work is required.
Thames Water:
No objection to the proposed drainage strategy, providing all of the works referred to in the Drainage Statement will be delivered and the agreed discharge rates will be adhered to.
NEIGHBOUR RESPONSES:
Three letters of representation have been received raising concerns that do not relate to this Reserved Matters application.
POLICY AND DETERMINING ISSUES
Hart District Council Local Plan (Replacement) 1996 – 2006
GEN1 - General Policy for Development GEN4 - General Design Policy GEN12 - Design Against Crime
CONSIDERATIONS:
Planning permission has been granted for a leisure centre and sports pitches and the means of access to the development through the grant of Outline planning permission in September 2014. The only matters for consideration now relate to the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of the proposed leisure centre and associated facilities. Condition 2 of planning permission 13/02513/MAJOR clearly sets out the requirements for the reserved matters and these are detailed below.
1) Layout:
The proposed layout, with the main leisure centre building located towards the north of the site relatively close to the approved residential areas within the Edenbrook development, but far enough away to limit any direct impact on residential amenity, is appropriate and 14
PAPER E Appendix 1 functionally efficient in terms of ease of accessibility to the leisure facilities within the development.
The provision of the outdoor sports pitches in the centre and toward the south of the site will reduce the potential for noise disturbance to residential occupiers and also reduce any potential impact from floodlighting, subject to the imposition of conditions controlling the hours of use of the pitches and illumination of the floodlights.
Appropriate details for the storage and removal of refuse utilising an enclosed bin store and recycling point area located to the south of the leisure centre building and to the west of the main car park have been provided.
Of the 319 car parking spaces (which would include 9 accessible bays), 83 bays would provide for wider parking (for 4x4 vehicles etc). The accessible bays would be located close to main entrance and plaza. 4 bays are to have an electric connection for future provision of electric vehicle charging. Appropriate levels of cycle parking, motorcycle parking and coach parking spaces are to be provided in accordance with adopted standards close to the building to facilitate ease of access.
The provision of car parking between the building and Hitches Lane would facilitate easy access to the leisure centre facility and would be located in the best possible location to serve the development.
Overall, therefore, the proposed layout is acceptable and would address the requirements of condition 2e), 2f) and 2k) of the outline planning permission.
2) Scale:
The scale of the proposed building has been set by the facilities mix that has been agreed by the Council and the development has been designed to incorporate the type of facilities established to be required as a result of user studies undertaken by the Council's Leisure Services section to assess local requirements and to meet Sport England and Amateur Swimming Association requirements. The facilities mix proposed in this application reflects the Core Scheme agreed by Council in November 2013 and then re-confirmed by Council in July 2014:
A gross floor area of around 6,000 sq m • A swimming pool 25m long with 8 lanes plus a learner pool • A sports hall • Studio facilities • A gym • A cafe • A large car park • Senior and junior all weather pitches • Some natural grass pitches
The overall scale of the building is clearly substantial with maximum dimensions of 260 metres by 130 metres and a maximum height of 13.79 metres, but this is necessary given the mix of facilities agreed by the Council. Whilst the scale of the building is large, the design approach adopted, incorporating two curved roof wings with a central flat roofed element, would sufficiently break up the overall mass of the structure, and would reduce any potential 15
PAPER E Appendix 1 visual impact and would provide a suitable architectural response. In addition, the site would be well landscaped to further reduce the impact of the development.
As a result, the scale of the proposal and its impact are appropriate, and would address the requirements of policy 2i) of the outline planning permission.
3) Appearance:
The proposed leisure centre would be an innovative building and the external surfaces of the structure would utilise substantial areas of transparent glazing formed from an aluminium double glazed curtain walling system, with a brickwork plinth to the building constructed of Ibstock Atlas blue smooth brick or similar. White painted render would be utilised around the main entrance and timber effect cladding would be used in the walls of the building. The roof structure of the two 'wings' would be constructed from a curved copper coloured metal standing seam material with a metal planked soffit to create the canopy to the main entrance. A simple flat roof finish in single ply would be provided to the central element.
Given the proposed leisure centre use of the proposed building its appearance is generally dictated by the need to meet the various requirements to meet the set standards in terms of the sporting facilities within the building. Nevertheless, the design approach adopted is appropriate in this countryside location and is acceptable.
The appearance of the development would therefore address the requirements of policy 2a) and 2g) of the outline planning permission.
4) Landscaping:
The design of the hard and soft landscaping elements of the proposal has been generally dictated by the need to incorporate a building of sufficient size to provide appropriate leisure facilities for the local community and to provide an appropriate level of outdoor pitches. The remaining areas outside of the building envelope and the areas of sports pitches would predominantly be either associated car parking facilities, access routes and soft landscaping.
The access roads within the site would be surfaced with tarmacadam as would the main car parking spaces although there is overspill parking available which would comprise net pave set in topsoil with grass seeding. Concrete flag paving would be provided around the pedestrian access to the leisure centre. Self-binding gravel would be provided to the access paths around the proposed outdoor sports pitches and the all weather pitches.
Soft landscaping would generally be grass with a perennial planting mix, areas of screen planting to Hitches Lane and along the access road and wild meadow grass to the south of the site. Hedge boundary planting would be provided along the southern site boundary and 171 trees would be planted around the boundaries of the site to enhance existing tree planting.
The proposed landscaping would be well incorporated into the scheme. The comprehensive landscaping proposals would incorporate a good mix of indigenous species to ensure the building and other elements of the development are set within a well landscaped area. Appropriate levels of boundary planting and screening would be provided.
16
PAPER E Appendix 1 Appropriate details have also been provided regarding future maintenance of the landscaped areas within the Design & Access Statement.
The landscaping proposals are an appropriate response to the setting of the building and the details would accord with the requirements of condition 2b), 2c), 2d) and 2g) of the outline planning permission.
Other Matters:
Noise:
Whilst a detailed Noise Report has been submitted additional noise survey data is required to clarify the noise implications of the proposed development. The clarification is required to enable proper consideration of what, if any, mitigation is required which could be as simple as providing an appropriate housing around the plant to shield the equipment. The Environmental Health Officers are satisfied that this issue can be addressed by the submission of further information and as such it is recommended that the Head of Regulatory Services be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the receipt of a satisfactory noise assessment.
Drainage Strategy:
A detailed Drainage Statement has been submitted which also includes details of foul and surface water drainage, Greenfield site run-off calculations, storm water attenuation methods and a flood risk assessment.
These documents confirm that the surface water run-off from the site will discharge at greenfield runoff rate of 28.5l/s into the local watercourses/ditches. On site attenuation will be provided to accommodate up to a 1 in 100 year 6 hour storm event plus climate change. Various Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS) techniques will be implemented across the development including swales and permeable paving and underground storage.
The proposed surface water strategy should also reduce the quantity, improve the quality and delay the surface water leaving the site. The foul water drainage system discharge into the adopted foul sewer within the site under the control of the sewerage undertaker, Thames Water, has been agreed who have confirmed that there is sufficient capacity within the system to deal with the output from the development site. The foul water from the leisure centre will be collected and pumped to high level at a rate of 5 l/s before discharging by gravity to the public system. 24,000 litres minimum of foul water storage will be provided on the site to cater for the swimming pool backwash filters.
The Flood Risk Assessment concludes that the risk of flooding to the site is low, and the surface water management systems proposed will result in an overall reduction in the risk of flooding elsewhere at higher return periods through a reduction in overall runoff rates from the site at high return periods. There will be a minor increase in peak surface water flow rates from the site at lower return periods, however this is not expected to materially affect the risk of flooding on surface water flow mechanisms in the area.
The details provided accord with the requirements of condition 2h) of the outline planning permission.
17
PAPER E Appendix 1
Lighting Proposals:
Details of proposed external lighting have been provided within an External Lighting Design Statement and Wildlife Mitigation report and these details have been reviewed by Environmental Health and are appropriate, subject to the provision and agreement of Isolux diagrams and illumination calculations when final product selection for the proposed floodlighting has been completed.
The submitted details therefore accord with the requirements of condition 2j) of the outline planning permission.
Details relating to the other remaining elements of condition 2, namely site, ground and floor levels (condition 2l)); a programme of archaeological work (condition 2m)); and phasing of the development (condition 2n)), have also been provided and therefore all of the requirements of condition 2 have been satisfactorily addressed.
CONCLUSION
The details submitted in respect of the Reserved Matters relating to the Outline planning permission, 13/02513/MAJOR, incorporating the new leisure centre and outdoor pitches, namely the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of the proposed facility, are acceptable and accord with the terms of the outline permission.
The appearance of the development would constitute an innovative, well designed, high quality response architecturally to its setting and countryside location, utilising appropriate materials for a large building of this type. The proposed landscaping would facilitate the use of the development, but would also provide appropriately treated open space around the facility and would include appropriate areas of soft landscaping and tree screening that would help soften the visual impact of the scheme. The layout of the development is functionally appropriate and would place the area of built development close to existing, and proposed, development at Edenbrook and thereby limit the spread of built development into the open countryside as far as possible. The scale of the development, whilst significant, would meet set standards and provide a development that would function properly for all intended uses.
Overall, the Reserved Matters have been appropriately addressed and approval is therefore recommended.
RECOMMENDATION - Refer to Full Council
CONDITIONS
1 The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved drawings:
Edenbrook Leisure Centre – Logistics Plan; 14002 (08) 001; 14002 (08) 101; 14002 (08) 201; 14002 (08) 900; 14002 (08) 901; 14002 (08) 910; 14002 (08) 911; 14002 (08) 912; 14002 (08) 913; 152078-50-01-01 P1; 152078-50-ZZ-01 P1; 152078-51-00- 01 P1; 152078-51-00-02 P2; 152078-00-03 P2; 152078-01-03 P2; 152078-51-SK-01 P2; 80-00-02; C-122 P2; C-123 P2; C-130 P4; C-131 P3; GTA1107 GA 000;
18
PAPER E Appendix 1 GTA1107 GA 001; GTA1107 GA 002; GTA1107 GA 003; GTA1107 GA 004; GTA1107 GA 005; GTA1107 L300; and GTA1107 PP.400.
REASON: For the avoidance of doubt, and in the interests of proper planning.
2 The leisure centre hereby approved shall only be open to the public between the hours of 06:00 and 23:00 hours.
REASON: In the interests of neighbouring amenity and to accord with saved policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan (Replacement) 1996-2006 and First Alterations to the Hart District Local Plan (Replacement) 1996-2006.
3 The floodlighting to the outdoor sports pitches hereby approved shall not be illuminated beyond 22:30 hours.
REASON: To protect neighbouring amenity and the character of the surrounding countryside and to accord with saved policies GEN1 and GEN6 of the Hart District Local Plan (Replacement) 1996-2006 and First Alterations to the Hart District Local Plan (Replacement) 1996-2006.
4 Service deliveries/collections to and from the site shall not take place outside of the hours of 07:00 to 21:00.
REASON: In the interests of neighbouring amenity and to accord with saved policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan (Replacement) 1996-2006 and the First Alterations to the Hart District Local Plan (Replacement) 1996-2006.
5 No development shall take place until details and samples of all external surfaces have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with approved details.
REASON To ensure that the external appearance of the building is satisfactory and to satisfy saved policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan (Replacement) 1996-2006 and First Alteration to the Hart District Local Plan (Replacement) 1996-2006
6 Prior to the completion of the development Isolux diagrams and illumination calculations based on the actual external lighting products to be used on the site shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. Once approved the development should be completed fully in accordance with the approved details.
REASON: In the interests of neighbouring and visual amenity and to satisfy saved policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan (Replacement) 1996-2006 and First Alterations to the Hart District Local Plan (Replacement) 1996-2006.
19
PAPER E Appendix 1
INFORMATIVES
1 The Council works positively and proactively on development proposals to deliver sustainable development in accordance with the NPPF. In this instance:
The applicant was advised of the necessary information needed to process the application and, once received, the application was acceptable and no further engagement with the applicant was required.
20
COUNCIL
Date and Time: Thursday, 30 April 2015 at 7.00 pm
Place: Council Chamber, Civic Offices, Fleet
Present:
COUNCILLORS –
Billings (Chairman)
Ambler Crampton Oliver Axam Crisp Parker Bailey Crookes Radley JE Bennison Forster S Radley JR Blewett Ive Southern Burchfield Kennett Wheale Butler Makepeace-Browne Woods Clarke Morris Collett Neighbour
Officers Present:
Patricia Hughes Joint Chief Executive Daryl Phillips Joint Chief Executive Carl Westby Head of Leisure and Environmental Promotion Emma Whittaker Development Management Team Leader Gill Chapman Business Support - Committee Services
101 MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
Councillor Crisp reported that he had attended the last meeting and asked that his name be added to the attendees. With this amendment the Minutes of the Meeting held on 26 March 2015 were confirmed and signed as a correct record.
102 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Cockarill Gorys, Forster P Harward, Leeson and Lewis.
103 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
No declarations were made.
104 CHAIRMAN’S AWARDS PRESENTATION
The Chairman presented awards to Mike Carrivick, Merchandising volunteer with Aerobility and volunteers from the Odiham Cottage Hospital Befriending Service. The Chairman thanked the volunteers for their hard work.
CL.129
105 COUNCIL PROCEDURE RULE 12 – QUESTIONS BY THE PUBLIC
Questions were received from Councillor Andrew Renshaw (Winchfield Parish Council), Ms Christine Strudwick and Mr David Turver, details of which are set out in Appendix A attached to these Minutes.
106 COUNCIL PROCEDURE RULE 14 – QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS
There were no questions from Members.
107 CHAIRMANS ANNOUNCEMENTS
The Chairman had attended the following events on behalf of the Council.
17 April Mayor of Basingstoke Charity Dinner, Audleys Wood Hotel 18 April Pelly Concert, Church on the Heath – Children’s Concert 19 April Hampshire Hog lunch at North Hants Golf Club
The Vice-Chairman had attended:
8 April The Dudley Keep memorial Lecture at the Great Hall Winchester 15 April Lord Mayor Portsmouth Sea, Sailors & Supper informal event.
The Chairman thanked those retiring Councillors, Forster P and Ive, for their contributions to the Council. Members paid tribute to Councillor Ive for his sterling service as Member and former Chairman. Councillor Perdi Forster has sent a message thanking members for their help and encouragement. Council gave their best wishes to the retiring members for future endeavours.
The Chairman thanked the previous night’s Planning Committee member, who had donated money for cake. Donations to the Nepal Earthquake fund had raised £44.
108 CABINET MEMBERS ANNOUNCEMENTS
The Leader of the Council, Councillor Parker, announced:
The latest iteration of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment based on February evidence has now been published. Officers will circulate a link to members and parish councils tomorrow; they would value feedback to inform the next version due later in the year.
On Tuesday with officers I attended the Joint Hart, Rushmoor, Surrey Heath Member Liaison Group meeting. Among items discussed were employment sites proposed for release for residential uses, and the Planning Advisory Service review of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment.
On 30th January a group of members from all Groups met Mr Keith Holland, the senior Planning Inspector. The note of the meeting is available on the Hart website, and I would encourage members who have not yet read it to take time to do so.
CL.130
The Cabinet Member for Economic Development and Corporate Finance, Councillor Crookes, had no announcements.
The Cabinet Member for Community Wellbeing, Councillor Crampton, had no announcements.
The Cabinet Member for Regulatory Services, Councillor Collett, announced:
The latest meeting of the Hampshire Police and Crime Panel took place on10th April in Farnborough. Matters considered included:
* the PCC’s updated Police and Crime Plan, * a presentation on the Operational Change Programme, which is the name given to the significant changes being made in order to cope with the latest £25 million budget reduction, * a report proposing improvements to the Protocol governing complaints to the PCP about the actions of the PCC, * and an afternoon Proactive Scrutiny session on Mental Wellbeing and Policing.
There was also a proposal that all future meetings of the PCP should be held in Winchester as a central location. I’m sorry to say that what this means for us is that the meeting to be held on 3rd July will not now be hosted here in Hart.
The Cabinet Member for Environment, Councillor Oliver, no had announcements.
The Cabinet Member for Housing, Councillor Neighbour, had no announcements.
The Cabinet Member for Corporate Services, Councillor Radley JE, had no announcements.
109 JOINT CHIEF EXECUTIVES’ REPORT
The Joint Chief Executives reported that the new audio system for the Chamber had been ordered and would be fitted early in the new municipal year. This should considerably improve the facilities for Members regarding sound and Wi-fi.
110 MINUTES OF COMMITTEES
Meeting Date
Overview and Scrutiny 17 March No questions asked
Standards 18 March No questions asked. Minute 6 - Adjustments to the Constitution See Minute 11 below.
CL.131
Audit 24 March No questions asked
Cabinet 2 April No questions asked.
Planning 8 April No questions asked. Minute 74 - Proposed Leisure Centre See Minute 14 below.
111 ADJUSTMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION
Council considered the recommended adjustments to the Council's Constitution, to enable issues experienced last year to be addressed. The issues relate to the election of a Leader and Cabinet; the authority delegated to officers to instigate legal proceedings; and an adjustment be made to Contract Standing Orders (CSOs) to reflect new Regulations.
This item had been proposed and seconded at the Council meeting of 26 March 2015, and had been deferred for consideration according to the requirements of Paragraph 25.1 of the Constitution.
Members supported the resolution unanimously
RESOLVED
1 That Paragraphs 7.4 and 7.5 of the Council's Constitution be amended in accordance with the wording recommended in Appendix 1
2 That all reference to "In consultation with Chief Solicitor" be removed from the Officer Scheme of Delegation as identified in Appendix 2
3 That the Joint Chief Executives be authorised to amend Contract Standing Orders (CSOs) to remove all reference to Pre-Qualification Questionnaires (PQQ's) for anything except OJEU (Official Journal of the European Community) procurements with an additional insertion about using the national portal 'Contracts Finder' for any contacts above £25k.
112 CHANGE TO STANDING ORDERS
Council were asked to agree to a statutory change to Standing Orders to reflect a new regime for the disciplining and dismissal of senior staff.
Paragraph 25.1 of the Constitution states that ‘Any motion to change the Constitution will, when proposed and seconded, be referred without discussion to the next ordinary meeting of the Council.’
Councillor Morris proposed the motion and Councillor Southern seconded it.
CL.132 The wording in paragraph 5.2 was queried, and Members asked for more details of the process. The Joint Chief Executive agreed to circulate further details before the June meeting to clarify these issues.
This item was therefore deferred to be considered at the next ordinary meeting of the Council on 25 June 2015.
113 CLIMATE LOCAL
Council received information on the Local Government Association’s Climate Local Commitment; a voluntary statement where the Council can demonstrate commitment to working on climate change issues locally.
There had been overwhelming support from Overview and Scrutiny, and Members supported the initiative and the resolution. Members agreed that actions should be seen through, as the public would be judging the Council’s achievements through a website showing progress.
Members supported the resolution unanimously.
RESOLVED
1 That Hart District Council agrees to support the Climate Local initiative and signs up to the declaration, set out in Appendix 1.
2 That Hart District Council agrees to support the Joint Hampshire Climate Local Commitment 2015/16 with specific projects, as outlined in Appendix 2.
3 That Council notes the further actions planned to engage the community and stakeholders in promoting climate change and developing the action plan.
114 PROPOSED LEISURE CENTRE
Members considered the recommendation of Planning Committee regarding approval of the reserved matters application for the proposed leisure centre at Edenbrook, Hitches Lane, Fleet.
Councillor Crookes as lead of the Leisure Centre Working Group thanked members and officers who had worked hard to get the project to this point. The next phase would come to July Council when it was hoped that Members would be able to give the final go ahead for the build.
Members discussed the landscaping, indigenous plants, gates for the car park to avoid out of hours noise pollution, the amount of cycle and motorcycle bays and coverage of the bays, and future encouragement for cyclists throughout the Fleet area.
An amendment to the resolution was suggested and Members agreed to extend the resolution for better clarity.
Members supported the resolution unanimously.
CL.133 RESOLVED
That the Head of Regulatory Services be authorised to grant permission, subject to the proposed planning conditions and a receipt of satisfactory noise impact assessment and that he be authorised to deal with any residual matters associated with the discharge of conditions or adjustments to the scheme.
The meeting closed at 8.25pm
CL.134 Appendix A
COUNCIL PROCEDURE RULE 12
QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL FROM THE PUBLIC
Councillor Andrew Renshaw of Winchfield Parish Council
Hospital formerly known as Vista in Winchfield
Question: What contact has Hart Council had in the past five years, through its officers and councillors, with those responsible for running the hospital and the regulatory authorities responsible for overseeing the work and security of the hospital?
Response: Cllr Renshaw raises a number of concerns regarding the recent escape from the Mildmay Oaks Independent Hospital in Winchfield, formerly known as the Vista Healthcare Independent Hospital, concerns which I am sure all members of the Council will share.
Whilst this incident will make us all look again at our procedures, to see if there is anything additional that should or could be done, the answer to the question is that as far as I can ascertain this Council has had no contact of this nature regarding the Hospital.
Nor would I have expected it to, as the bodies which have responsibility for what happens here include: the Clinical Commissioning Groups, and in particular the West Hampshire CCG which commissions services here on behalf of all the Hampshire CCGs; Hampshire County Council Adult Services, who have responsibility for overseeing the safeguarding of vulnerable adults; the Care Quality Commission who, among many responsibilities, are responsible for monitoring, inspecting and regulating hospitals like this one, which provide specialist care and support for patients with learning disabilities and mental health problems; and, of course, the Police.
Question: Given that the hospital has failed two inspections by the Quality Care Commission in the past six months, what steps have Hart Council taken to seek assurances that appropriate measures have now been put in place to ensure the safety of the staff and patients, and the local community?
Response: I have already commented on where the relevant responsibilities lie in relation to this hospital, but the Council has been briefed regularly by the police about their involvement with this facility in relation to investigating the crimes reported by the patients and staff.
We are also aware of the CQC findings, following which I understand that the secure wing was closed and those patients removed to other facilities. As a result, the number of patients at the hospital was reduced from 54 to fewer than 20. The new operator, Partnerships in Care, who took over the hospital just a few weeks ago, is also reviewing the safety of the staff and the local community, and of course the CQC is taking an active interest in what happens here following the recent inspections.
CL.135 We were assured this afternoon by the receipt of a letter from the Regional Director for Partnerships in Care, in which they have not only expressed a willingness to have an on-going dialogue with local community leaders, but also assured us that their clinicians and staff are working to improve all aspects of security.
Further to that, I was grateful to Cllr Renshaw for letting me know that a meeting is now being set up on 11th May between Partnerships in Care, Chief Inspector Matt Reeves and himself to discuss the way forward. I would be very happy to join that meeting if Cllr Renshaw would like me to do so.
Question: Does Hart Council accept that following the escape of a convicted sex offender on April 21, the local community has very real concerns about security at the hospital? What talks have taken place with the police and other authorities following the escape to ensure that security is tightened? How can residents in the vicinity of the hospital be informed of any such escapes if they should happen in the future? What lines of communication are there between the hospital, the district council, the parish council and the local community?
Response: I’m sure that all members accept that the local community in Winchfield, plus Hartley Wintney and other parishes throughout Hart, will have very real concerns about ensuring that security at the hospital is reviewed. I have already mentioned that the circumstances around this incident are being investigated and I have been assured that the Police will provide feedback to the Provider and the CQC to make sure that any 'lessons learnt' are embedded.
Following the escape, the Police contacted Hart District Council and local schools as soon as possible to make us and them aware of the missing person. The Council worked in partnership with the Police to alert relevant staff who may be working in that area and come into contact with the escapee, to enable quick reporting of any sightings, plus local Ward and County Council Members and our parish councils.
The police conducted door to door enquiries in targeted locations, they visited businesses in Hartley Wintney that might have been able to help with CCTV footage and Chief Inspector Annabel Berry conducted 15 media interviews to make sure that the message got out to as many people as possible, as quickly as possible.
Members will be aware that Mr Munden handed himself in at a police station near Milton Keynes last weekend. He has been returned to a different facility and is not, I have been assured, due to return to Winchfield.
I am sure that Winchfield Parish Council will want to build a direct relationship with Partnerships in Care in order to discuss whether any additional alert system is appropriate for local residents and this seems both the right time to do so and the right way forward.
Such incidents always provide an opportunity to review communication lines and I agree with Cllr Renshaw that this should be carried out, as a high priority, now that the immediate concern of Mr Munden being at large is over.
Councillor Renshaw asked a supplementary question:
Do you not agree that as Cabinet Member for Community Safety you should have a responsibility?
CL.136 Councillor Collett responded:
Yes I agree. This is not something that has featured previously, but an issue been raised and we will take an active interest in it.
Christine Strudwick
1 At the meeting in November 2014 when the New Settlement option was debated at length Mr Phillips undertook to report back initial findings on testing in spring / early summer 2015; I note that a verbal update on the outcome of stage one testing of the local plan new settlement and strategic opportunities was due March 2015. Please would you tell me where I can find the written report of that verbal update or, if it has not yet been presented would Mr Phillips please report tonight or confirm the date when he will provide that report?
Mr Phillips also stated that if the testing had not been completed by spring risk assessments would be undertaken; if that is the current situation please update us on the state of the testing process and the risk assessment analysis.
Response: There is no written report, it was a verbal update. Essentially the Part 1 testing is work in progress. An update will be provided at the next Local Plan Steering Group due shortly after the elections, the minutes of which are reported to Cabinet.
2 At the same meeting Mr Phillips confirmed that HDC would “challenge hard" the requirements from Surrey Heath and Rushmoor to contribute to their housing numbers given that these two councils claim they cannot meet their own requirements due to SANG and SPA restrictions. Please give an update on the current state of those negotiations with our neighbouring councils.
Response: We have made clear to Rushmoor and Surrey Heath that we will scrutinise their evidence to check that they are doing all they reasonably can to accommodate new housing. We will look at their Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments (SHLAA), and on Tuesday this week we heard why Rushmoor wish to protect their most important employment sites.
When Rushmoor publish a consultation draft plan in the summer we will consider their draft plan, and their supporting evidence, and respond accordingly. If we have good reasons to think that they could deliver more housing then we will say so in our response.
With regards to Surrey Heath, they are unlikely to publish a draft plan for some time, but we are trying to get their latest estimated housing capacity out of them. We are even looking at their SHLAA ourselves to try and estimate their capacity.
3 All the major political parties have now made manifesto commitments that they will focus on regenerating brownfield land. Please will HDC update us on whether HDC has compiled a detailed register of brownfield land in Hart? If the exercise has been completed what is the total number of housing units which might, in the next local plan period, be realised from brownfield sites? If the assessment is not yet completed when will it be so? Will Hart confirm that it is committed to using such sites before approving planning applications for significant developments on currently rural sites?
CL.137 Response: All political parties are talking at a very high strategic level about “brownfield” land without being clear what that would mean at a practical level. ‘Brownfield” land has a very broad definition and (apart from certain exclusions) covers all land in England where there are or have been buildings or other development. Much of this land is already in productive use and would not be suitable for new housing. To create a register in these circumstances would be an academic exercise which would be of no real value.
If we are to have a meaningful debate the potential contribution of brownfield land to meeting Local Plan housing targets the policy instead should focus on the importance of bringing redundant urban land back into productive use. That means that we should identify land which follows the definition in the NPPF, in an area that supports any necessary infrastructure to support housing uses (health care, transport, schools, etc), and also meets the following criteria:
Deliverable - the site must be available for development now or in the near future where we have evidence that the owner would be willing to make the land or buildings available for new housing.
Free of constraint - We should not identify as suitable for housing any land which is subject to severe physical, environmental or policy constraints, unless the constraints can realistically be mitigated while retaining the viability of redevelopment.
Capable of development - The site must be in a condition and location that would make it a genuine option for developers: that is, it must be clear to everyone that there would be interest from developers in purchasing the site and building housing there in the near future.
In this regard the most obvious start point is the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA). Amongst other, this is one of the principle areas where landowners themselves can identify land that is suitable for development. The SHLAA is published, it has recently been updated, and it formed the basis for the urban focus calculations that were used in last summer’s Housing Options paper. That work showed that there is enough land available in Hart to deliver a theoretical capacity of around 12,000 dwellings, of which some 750 are identified as being deliverable within the urban areas. Work is underway to seek to increase this potential scale of deliverability on brownfield sites..
As a point of principle however, strictly speaking there is currently no national policy that supports a “brownfield” first approach. We however support the objective of brownfield first and will look to focus new development within the urban areas but one has to be realistic about the potential scale of deliverability.
The key determinant about what land will be released first and in what order will be determined by the 5 year land supply position at the time of the determination of planning application. As the community knows to its cost, if the Council cannot demonstrate a supply of specific deliverable1 sites to provide five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirements, it will be developers who choose which sites are brought forward for development and not local communities.
4 We were told that “Hampshire County Council must supply school places”; please will HDC confirm the numbers which HCC have assessed as being the required number of school places for schools, for pupils of all ages, in the next plan period given the demographic changes forecast?
1 For this purpose a site is only deliverable where is it available now, offers a suitable location for housing development now and there is a reasonable prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years.
CL.138
Response: On the basis of information from HCC 4,000 new dwellings would likely create a need for approximately 1,200 primary school places and 840 secondary school places. If the unmet need from Rushmoor and Surrey Heath is factored in the total number of new spaces required is more in the region of 2,100 primary places and 1,470 secondary places. This does not include any shortfall in current places that will arise from development already granted planning permission but not yet built.
HCC will monitor these figures closely as both the HDC development strategy evolves and the demand for school places from the existing population changes. Therefore, these figures will likely be subject to some change over time.
5 Please will HDC comment on the conflicting reports which have been made in the local press regarding whether or not the Basingstoke to Waterloo line can ever be re- engineered to utilise double decker trains to increase capacity?
Response: Network Rail are best placed to comment on speculation about whether or not the Basingstoke to Waterloo line can ever be re-engineered to utilise double decker trains to increase capacity. In this regard, the Wessex Route Study has been in development since December 2013 and has now been published as a draft for consultation. The consultation period for the Wessex Route Study has now closed. Responses received are currently being reviewed and will be published on Network Rails website in due course.
Ms Strudwick asked supplementary questions:
Question 1 - Does the Joint Chief Executive consider that the detailed legal opinion highlighting the deficiencies and weaknesses in your local plan process from Peter Village QC is a risk and how will this be addressed?
The Joint Chief Executive responded: I do not recall making a specific reference to risk assessment in the context that you describe. The advice of the Planning Inspector last October recommended that we do not follow that approach and legal opinion is exactly that - opinion. We are however grateful for the opinion and will reflect upon it when we advise the Council on the next stage of the Local Plan
Question 2 - If Rushmoor and Surrey Heath do not publish draft plans until the summer at the earliest, how can Hart be specific about the total number of houses needed in the HDC plan?
Councillor Parker responded: We cannot have a final number until they get to a draft plan. Until then we have to work on their indications. We are having meetings regularly with opposite numbers at Surrey Heath and Rushmoor in order to understand their position, and seek to approach them in a way to assist our case. There is an employment land review which will serve a purpose for later on. We want to encourage them to develop, eg brownfield sites, in order to not pass numbers on to us.
Question 3 - I am disappointed that HDC seem unwilling to compile a database of brownfield sites and I believe there is confusion between deliverable and developable. Deliverable apples to sites in the first five years of the plan and Hart has a five year land supply. Brownfield sites only need to be developable, a less onerous standard. Why did I not receive answers to my questions earlier than 3pm this afternoon?
CL.139 Councillor Parker responded: Hart’s Standing Orders say that the questions will be asked and answered on the floor this evening. As a courtesy we give you the responses early. It is sent to you when it is ready, and not held over for any purpose and I do not accept that premise. I am sorry you didn’t get the responses as quickly as you would have liked but they are sent out in a measured way over time.
David Turver
Status of the Local Plan Project and Work-Plan At the last meeting, a supplementary question was asked about whether the local plan was on track. It was asserted that “It is on the track we have set. Consultation at Regulation 18 stage provides no added value according to the careful advice we have taken from the Planning Inspector. I would not accept that we are not on track”. However, under the LDS version 3, there was due to be a consultation on a draft plan in March 2015. Notwithstanding that this Reg 18 consultation has been removed from the process, it is clear that the council does not have a draft plan now to consult upon even if it wanted to. Moreover, it is my understanding that Part 1 testing of strategic sites was due to have been completed in time for the Local Plan Steering Group meeting due to take place on 24 March 2015. Further I understand that the planned meeting did not take place, and a follow up meeting is not scheduled for some time.
Question: What is the current status of testing?
Response: The testing remains work in progress for the time being. Lots of work is being done, including site appraisals and discussions with infrastructure providers and government agencies. An update will be provided at the next Member Steering Group; however we still anticipate that the work will be complete by the end of June.
Question: What is the work-plan for the Local plan project, including the scope, objectives, deliverables (e.g. plans for retail, employment, infrastructure, landscape character assessment etc. as well as the development planning document) and schedule (gantt chart) of activities up to the planned Reg 19 consultation in Autumn 2015.
Response: The latest high level timetable is that published on our website. I can confirm that we do have more detailed internal monitoring arrangements which mean that our progress is monitored monthly and regularly reported to Members at appropriate stages. I can also confirm that we are actively working with the Hart District Association of Parish and Town Councils to ensure that they have the assurance that the Plan is being progressed appropriately because a number of Neighbourhood Plan teams are seeking to get a Neighbourhood Plan in place. In this regard there are regular group and individual liaison arrangements.
Question: What formal project management methodology (such as Prince 2) is the council adopting to manage this complex project?
Response: Microsoft Project.
CL.140 Mr Turver asked a supplementary question: The answer given demonstrates a misunderstand of the question. The question was what project management methodology was being used - not what project management “tool”. I was not asking if you did have a plan but what it was?
Councillor Parker responded: We have not put the detail of the project plan in the public domain for reasons of protecting the public interest to stop developers being forewarned into taking advantage to submit speculative planning applications. We have invited a member of the Hart Association of Parish Councils to be involved in the local plan process and he has expressed himself happy with the management of the project. We would not want to extend that more widely.
Mr Turver asked a supplementary question: Your responses indicate that the project is at least 3 months behind schedule and it is off track. The QC’s opinion says your position is hopeless, what are you going to do to bring it back on track?
Councillor Parker responded: It is on track, I do not accept your premise that the QC’s opinion is that it is hopeless. The Opinion does not say that and in any event it is his opinion and is only an opinion.
CL.141