APPENDIX 7 APPENDIX 7

ALNWICK DISTRICT COUNCIL

MEETING OF THE OPERATIONS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

COUNCIL CHAMBER, 1 CLAYPORT STREET,

TUESDAY, 11TH SEPTEMBER, 2007 AT 6.30 P.M.

PRESENT: Councillors I. Hinson (Chairman), H. W. Philipson (Vice-Chairman), Mrs. E. Gray, Mrs. M.E. Haddow, J.M. Hedley, J.E. Hobrough, J.M. Hope, C.M. Mills, D.J.C. Rixon, J.G. Watson.

In Attendance: Councillor Miss C. Grey, Mrs. A.M. Jones, T.M. Spence.

Officers: Chief Executive, Director of Environment and Regeneration, Head of Planning and Building Control, Assistant Solicitor, Conservation Officer.

Apologies: Councillors E.M. Blakey, A.M. Harrington.

(* Denotes a Delegated Matter)

119. DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS BY MEMBERS AND OFFICERS

Members and officers were reminded that if they had a disclosable interest in any item on the Agenda for this Committee meeting, the existence and nature of that interest must be disclosed at the commencement of consideration of the item or when the interest became apparent.

The following disclosures were made:

Councillor Agenda Item Issue Interest Mrs. E. Gray 3 d) Proposed Conservation Area Personal Designations I. Hinson 3 d) Proposed Conservation Area Personal Designations Mrs. A.M. Jones 3 d) Proposed Conservation Area Personal Designations

120. PROPOSED CONSERVATION AREA DESIGNATIONS

A report was submitted to consider three potential areas for Conservation Area designation at , Guyzance and Boulmer.

The Head of Planning and Building Control referred Members to the Late Amendments and Observations schedule which had been circulated at the meeting and contained additional responses received since the publication of the agenda.

39 APPENDIX 7 APPENDIX 7

Members were advised of the public consultation which had been carried out for each area which included: • Notification to Councillors, Parish Councils and stakeholders in January 2007. • Information was distributed on the implications of Conservation Area designation and a list of questions summarising the criteria for assessments. • Information sent to the residents of each area approximately four weeks before the public meeting. • Public meetings on the following dates: Amble – 17th July, 2007 Boulmer – 19th July, 2007 Guyzance – 23rd July, 2007 • Deadline of 20th August, 2007 for residents comments on the designation proposals and the draft conservation area character appraisals.

Copies of leaflets showing the proposed conservation area boundary options recommended by the North of Civic Trust were included at Appendix 1. A summary of the main concerns of respondents was included at Appendix 3 and Members were reminded that copies of the full correspondence was available in the Members’ Room.

The Head of Planning and Building Control highlighted the following issues for each area being considered: • Amble – the historical interest was critical but the architecture was also important. Concerns were expressed that designation would affect the prospects of regeneration. Officers felt that these perceived fears were not realistic as English Heritage was very interested in a partnership regeneration scheme. • Guyzance – focus on the hamlet although the landscape was also of great historic and cultural importance. Residents were of the opinion that there were sufficient controls through listed building legislation. However, this would not protect the wider area. • Boulmer – a long industrial history with historical and architectural features. Concerns related to fossilisation of the village, social division and changes to its character which had been carefully considered but the area was worthy of designation.

Guyzance Sir Anthony Milburn addressed the Committee on behalf of residents of the area who were not in favour of the designation of a conservation area at Guyzance. He made the following comments: • He had circulated his views by email as widely as possible including the Chairman of the Parish Council a copy had also been made available at the meeting. • Existing controls within the proposal areas were sufficient. An additional layer of bureaucracy would add paperwork, time and cost to future planning proposals. Management of the Guyzance landscape would become extremely difficult.

40 APPENDIX 7 APPENDIX 7

• Listed buildings were eligible for grant aid without the need to be in a conservation area. • Following research, grants were not available for landscapes of local importance and due to prioritisation by English Heritage there were limited grants for landscapes of national importance. • Conservation area status would have no impact on issues raised by the North of England Civic Trust and certain members of the public. • Photographs obtained by entering private land should be removed from all public records. • Concern that designation may result in a reduction in property values. • The proposals should be thrown out on legal grounds as - There was no right of appeal. - He was initially refused access to the public response to the proposals which conflicted with the principle of full disclosure for planning applications. - Officers prepared a short summary of the all public responses which meant that they could put their own spin on letters and omit an unwanted comments or provide their own biased interpretation especially if it went against Council policy. - A briefing should have been prepared by the North of England Civic Trust on existing controls and grants together with the advantages and disadvantages of designation.

The following information was given by. Sir Anthony Milburn in answer to questions from Members: • He did not think another layer of bureaucracy was necessary as there were already DEFRA Stewardship Schemes and a need for licences from the Forestry Commission to fell more than 5 trees. • He preferred the boundary of the conservation area be restricted to Option 1 the core settlement and the wider area proposed in Option 2 be excluded. • Conservation area designation would not prevent open cast coal mining and would not bring financial benefit. • Whilst grant aid was available for the preservation of buildings, it did not extend to the surrounding landscape which was expensive for landowners to maintain. • If Guyzance Hall were to be sold, covenants would be placed on the land to protect the property from adverse development.

Some Members were of the opinion that the village of Guyzance should be protected by being designated as a conservation area but having read the correspondence and listened to the discussion, were not in favour of this being extended to the wider area.

Officers were asked whether it would be possible for them to work in partnership with major landowners. They were willing to discuss Sir Anthony Milburn’s proposals for conservation although this would have an implication on resources.

41 APPENDIX 7 APPENDIX 7

It was proposed and agreed that the conservation area be designated in respect of option 1 for Guyzance and that a report be submitted to a future meeting in respect of a conservation partnership with major landowners.

Boulmer Mrs. L. McQueen addressed the meeting in her position as Chairman of Boulmer Parish Council and on behalf of residents of Boulmer who had registered strong objections to the proposed conservation area designation at Boulmer. Concern related to: • Increasing costs for home improvements. • An increase in property values making it more difficult for young people to afford a home in the village. • The effect on industry and businesses in the village and that they might to be able to continue to evolve. • Division within the village with only some areas proposed for inclusion. • The majority of responses were against the proposal. • The area was managed well under the existing planning procedure and the controls provided by designations as part of the heritage coastline, site of special scientific interest, nature conservation etc. • Responses had been above average to a health check in 2006 and a poll carried out in 2007 by the parish council when residents had been against Boulmer being designated as a conservation area. • Members were asked to listen to the views of the residents.

Councillor T.M. Spence also addressed the meeting to object to the proposals. He agreed that Boulmer was an attractive village with many stone built buildings but suggested if a conservation area was approved in Boulmer then conservation areas should also be designated in similar villages in the area. Councillor Spence requested that the village of Boulmer should be left as it was.

In answer to a question, Mrs. McQueen agreed that Boulmer comprised of a tight knit community where families had resided for a number of generations.

Members in favour of the conservation area designation in Boulmer were surprised at the opposition to the proposal. It was felt that the status did not make obtaining permission difficult, onerous or costly and that it was seen as a plus when properties were for sale. A large number of properties in the area were second homes or holiday lets and conservation designation protected the periphery of these buildings from being harmed. Plastic windows did not look attractive in stone built properties and support was expressed for an Article 4 Direction which would remove permitted development rights as more stringent controls were felt necessary.

There appeared to be a huge misconception regarding the implications of being in a conservation area as the status was closely guarded in villages within long standing conservation areas such as Warkworth. It was unfortunate that the benefits had not been understood and as such the consultation was felt to have failed. Alternatively, conservation area designation in Newton on the Moor was not felt to have been beneficial as it

42 APPENDIX 7 APPENDIX 7

had not prevented the building of inappropriate buildings, timber windows being replaced with plastic frames nor assisted with the repair of walls.

The Director of Environment and Regeneration confirmed that the process of conservation designation was selective and focussed on architectural merit. Policies on conservation area designation were included in the District Wide Local Plan adopted in 1997 and now under review. Consultation had been carried out as part of the process but this did not abdicate the responsibility of the Council which had a duty to keep under review the conservation of the district.

It was proposed that the conservation area designation for Boulmer be rejected as there was an overwhelming response from the village residents that they did not want it and it should not be imposed on them. Councillors were elected by the residents of the district and therefore were honour bound to listen to their views as part of the democratic process and make their decision.

Amble Councillor Mrs. A.M. Jones addressed the meeting in support of the proposals to designate a conservation area in Amble. She stated: • She disagreed with the comments that there were insufficient qualities to warrant designation. Designation would do a lot for the town as it was not protected in other ways e.g. AONB etc. • It would help future development, creating a consistent appearance which was sympathetic to the character of the town. • It would prevent excessively tall buildings being developed. • It would assist the control of development when considering planning applications. • Some of the respondents had been concerned about change and wanted the area left at it was but designation would increase the potential to preserve the best of Amble. • Approval would not mean that residents had to change their plastic windows.

In answer to a question it was confirmed that Amble did not have a parish plan.

Some Members expressed concern regarding the limited feedback to the consultation by the residents of Amble and suggested that it would be better for the matter to be adjourned in order to give more time for a greater response rate.

Councillors representing Amble advised that the proposals for a conservation area were regarded with suspicion by older residents and there was a lack of interest by the younger population. Some areas needed to be protected, particularly where development was moving quickly. It was noted that 1126 households had been notified about the proposals and it was unfortunate that there had been so few comments received. However, it was recommended that the proposed conservation area shown on page 65 be approved with a request that other areas be considered in the future. 43 APPENDIX 7 APPENDIX 7

Members agreed that there was a misconception about what conservation area designation meant and that it was not intended to threaten. It was also disappointing that a response had not been received from Amble Town Council due to the sudden death of the Town Clerk.

The Chairman confirmed that Amble Town Council had been in favour of the proposals. He was also generally in favour of the designation of a conservation area in Amble but was concerned about the poor response rate and that felt more time should be given.

The Director of Environment and Regeneration confirmed that the conservation area in Alnwick had been in existence for a number of years and there had been a significant amount of partnership work carried out on shop fronts and bringing properties back into use. English Heritage were receptive to a future scheme in Amble.

Some concern was expressed regarding the manner in which items had been considered and the inconsistency as to why proposals had been approved or rejected. The Director of Environment and Regeneration confirmed that as a Planning Authority, the Council had a statutory duty to review conservation areas, although he thought that once a decision was made it should not be reconsidered for perhaps 5 years.

The Chairman thanked David Lovie from the North of England Civic Trust for all their hard work. Mr. Lovie had enjoyed working in partnership with officers and confirmed that it was important to have a conservation strategy so that areas were treated carefully for the future.

RESOLVED that:

1. The Operations Executive Committee agree to the designation of the following two conservation areas: a. Guyzance Option 1 only (as shown on page 49 of the agenda papers) and a report be submitted to a future meeting of the Operations Executive Committee to explore a conservation partnership with major land owners. b. Amble 2. The Operations Executive Committee did not agree to the designation of the Boulmer conservation area. 3. The Operations Executive Committee authorise officers to formally designate the new boundaries of the two conservation areas as set out on the maps in Appendix 4, and adopt the draft conservation area character appraisals. 4. The Operations Executive Committee authorise officers to complete the public notices relating to the formal designation process for the conservation areas. This will include final notification of all parties who have participated in the process and all residents living within the 44 APPENDIX 7 APPENDIX 7

conservation areas. Notification will include a map of the newly designated conservation area and a schedule of properties.

121. REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY – COMMENTS ON PROPOSED CHANGES MAY 2007

A report was submitted which contained the Council’s response to the Proposed Changes to the Regional Spatial Strategy for the North East.

The Proposed Changes document had been issued by the Secretary of State following the Panel Report, which detailed the findings of the Examination in Public and national guidance issued since the submission of the Regional Spatial Strategy in 2005.

The consultation period for this document had ended on 6th August, 2007 and therefore the response had been agreed by the Chairman of the Operations Executive Committee and the Chief Executive under the Chief Executive’s urgency powers.

RESOLVED: that the submitted comments on the Regional Spatial Strategy Proposed Changes at Appendix 1 be noted as the Council’s submission to GONE and the Secretary of State.

122. BRIEFING ON COUNTY COUNCIL’S MINERALS AND WASTES DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK PREFERRED OPTIONS FOR THE CORE STRATEGY, SITE SPECIFIC ALLOCATIONS AND POLICIES AND THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL FRAMEWORK

A report was submitted to inform Members of the comments made to Northumberland County Council in response to a consultation on the minerals and wastes development framework. The Core Strategy set out the overall spatial strategy and key principles for minerals and waste developments; the Site Specific Allocations and Policies identified specific areas for future development; and the Development Control Framework provides detailed criteria for the protection of communities and the environment.

The consultation period had ended on 10th August, 2007 and therefore the response had been agreed by the Chairman of the Operations Executive Committee and the Chief Executive under the Chief Executive’s urgency powers.

Concern was expressed regarding the status of Cavill Head which lay between two areas where future mineral development was both likely and unlikely to happen.

It was noted that Amble had not been known as Amble by the Sea for a number of years.

45 APPENDIX 7 APPENDIX 7

RESOLVED that:

1. The report be received. 2. The individual recommendations made in Appendix 1 be noted as Alnwick District Council’s official consultation response.

123. PROPOSALS FOR A REGIONAL LOANS SCHEME

A report was submitted which contained details of a regional loans scheme to enable vulnerable people to carry out basic repairs to their homes. This scheme would take effect in April 2009 and replace the current system of grants available through the Private Sector Housing Renewal Policy.

The Regulatory Reform (Housing Assistance)(England and Wales Order) 2002 aimed to encourage home owners to take responsibility for the maintenance of their own homes and allowing local authorities to target their resources to those most in need. It also recognised that the development of a targeted financial assistance scheme required considerable development resources and that greater efficiencies could be achieved on a wider geographical scale.

A North East Region Equity Loans Working Group was established in December 2006 and agreed in principle that a regional loans scheme was worth pursuing and an outline proposal be prepared for consideration by local authorities.

A series of loans had been developed to cater for a range of different circumstances: • An interest free small works loan (up to £5,000) • A property appreciation loan • Capital and repayment loan at a discounted rate (up to £10,000)

It was noted that the Government wanted to speed up the reduction in the number of vulnerable households in non decent accommodation, but Members felt that this would not be achieved by replacing the current system of grants with loans that would at some point need to be repaid.

The Chief Executive advised that eligibility for grant assistance under the current scheme was also subject to means testing. He agreed that an example of a property loan be sent to Councillor Watson.

Several Members expressed concern regarding: • Who would determine whether a household was vulnerable. • The ability of households on low incomes to repay loans. • Whether there would be any checks to determine if there were any other charges on a property, their ranking and that the total value of the debt/charges did not exceed the value of the property.

46 APPENDIX 7 APPENDIX 7

The Director of Environment and Regeneration agreed to refer the suggestion that there should be reference to ‘resident’ homeowners in conditions as there was a large number of second and holiday homes in the district which should not be eligible for assistance.

It was agreed that the Council would support the establishment of a regional loans scheme in principle, but due to the above concerns they would like to see a report in the future on the progress of the scheme, as it was not due to be implemented in this area until April 2009.

RESOLVED that:

1. The Council support in principle the establishment of a Regional Loans Scheme to take effect from April 2009. 2. Approve a resolution under the Local Government Act 2000 and Local Authorities (Arrangement for the Discharge of Functions) (England) Regulations to allow the Accountable Body to perform the functions of bidding, controlling and otherwise administering the Regional Loans Programme. 3. A further report be submitted to the Operations Executive Committee on the progress of the Regional Loan Scheme.

124. AMBLE RETAIL DISTINCTIVENESS STUDY ACTION PLAN

Councillor Mrs. E. Gray disclosed a personal and prejudicial interest and left the meeting for the duration of this item.

A report was submitted which contained a copy of the Amble Retail Distinctiveness Study Action Plan commissioned by One North East.

The Action Plan sets out a strategy for talking the issues affecting the town and its development potential. The main objectives were identified as: • Retention of local people as regular shoppers. • Accommodation of future retail need. • Development of the town centre as an attraction. • Development of local food as a contributor to the local offer. • Development of a strong town centre community and commitment.

Members expressed some disappointment with the study as there was limited new information and some inaccurate data regarding free parking, projects that were already underway and typing errors. However, it was noted that it was useful to have the findings stated by an independent body. There was also concern regarding the amount of involvement or consultation with Amble Town Council. It was felt unnecessary for a retail study to be carried out on an annual basis as this was very costly and Members were of the opinion that this money would be better spent on progressing projects in the town centre.

RESOLVED: that responsibility for supporting the development of projects within the Amble Retail Distinctiveness

47 APPENDIX 7 APPENDIX 7

Study Action Plan be delegated to the Director of Environment and Regeneration.

125. THE TREASURY’S SUB NATIONAL REVIEW OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND REGENERATION

A report was submitted which contained details of the recent report published by the Government on ‘A Review of Sub-National Economic Development and Regeneration’.

The review focussed on the devolution and decentralisation of power to regional, sub-regional and local authority levels and to identify which level would be most appropriate for the various aspects of economic development: transport, business support, employment and skills, housing and planning. Proposals were identified under the following headings: • Strengthening the local authority role in economic development • Collaboration across sub-regions • Strengthening the regional tier

In addition, a new local government performance framework will cover economic, environmental and social objectives with clear linkage between national and local objectives. The economic development and neighbourhood renewal objectives in Local Area Agreements will also need to reflect the local contribution to achieving performance indicators in regional economic strategies.

RESOLVED that:

1. The report be noted. 2. The Treasury’s Sub National Review of Economic Development and Regeneration report be used as a reference in any discussions being held on future collaboration across the sub-region or region.

126. DEVELOPMENT OF LEADER IN NORTHUMBERLAND

A report was submitted to update Members on the development of a successor to the Leader+ programme and preferences regarding potential areas.

The Director of Environment and Regeneration explained that for the period 2007 to 2013 there would be a change in the funding arrangements for rural development, although there was a commitment by the Rural Development Programme for England that a minimum of 5% of its total budget would be allocated via a Leader approach, equating to £1,500,000 in the North East.

The process would be a competitive two stage process; submission of expressions of interest followed by the development of detailed Local Development Strategies.

48 APPENDIX 7 APPENDIX 7

It was envisaged that there would be between two and five Leader areas established in the North East and as more detailed criteria for judging the Expressions of Interests was not available, this had resulted in a significant amount of second guessing.

Northumberland Strategic Partnership brought together a wide range of key stakeholders to consider how best to approach the Expression of Interests and a number of principles were established: • There was strong support for the maximisation of LEADER coverage across the four rural districts in Northumberland, with the possible exception of the belonging communities of Morpeth and Ponteland. • Proposed LEADER areas should be based upon belonging communities and avoid, as far as possible, sub dividing them. • Competition within the county should be avoided i.e. an area should not be included in more than one EOI as this could be interpreted as demonstrating a lack of partnership engagement. • Within broad eligible area(s) specific areas of need/opportunity (spatial or thematic) should be targeted at an operational level.

Three potential options for the development of Leader areas had been identified: • Option 1 - North Pennines, West Northumberland, East Northumberland. • Option 2a - North Pennines, South and West Northumberland, North Northumberland. • Option 2b - South and West Northumberland, North Northumberland. • Option 4 - Pan Rural Northumberland.

The following comments were made by Members: • A limited number of Leader areas were to be allowed. • Warkworth was not identified within the Amble belonging community. It was understood that further work was being carried out by the Northumberland Strategic Partnership on boundaries.

In answer to a question, the Director of Environment and Regeneration advised that Leader status would open doors for further funding.

RESOLVED that:

1. Northumberland Strategic Partnership be requested to submit a pan rural Northumberland Expression of Interest. 2. Responsibility for supporting the development of Expressions of Interest be delegated to the Director of Environment and Regeneration.

127. DATA QUALITY POLICY

A report was submitted which sought approval of a data quality policy which had been recommended by the Council’s auditors, Deloitte and Touche in their report on the Performance Plan for 2006/07. The policy was intended to

49 APPENDIX 7 APPENDIX 7

formalise the process of collecting performance-related information together with the its analysis and reporting.

The policy had been agreed by the Operations Scrutiny and Overview Committee on 3rd July, 2007.

RESOLVED that:

1. The changes to the external inspection regime for performance indicators; and 2. The Data Quality Policy, be approved.

The meeting ended at 8.50 p.m.

Chairman.

50