Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Olszewski and Cllr Wilkes.

Cllr Tracey Peers, whilst not a Member of the Committee, sent her apologies for the item on HS2 as she was a Member of the HS2 Working Group.

To receive declarations of interest from Members on items included in this agenda

There were no declarations of Interest.

To agree as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 26 June 2013.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 26 June 2013 be confirmed as a correct record. 

The Chair of the HS2 Working Group, Cllr David Stringer, will give a status report on the current progress of the group.  

Terry Stafford, Community and Stakeholder Managerfrom HS2, has confirmed he will attend the meeting to give a short presentation and answer Members questions. 

The Chair of the Scrutiny Committee, who was also the Chair of the HS2 Working Group, gave a status update on the work of the group.  Their task had been to examine the available evidence and to determine if HS2 would be beneficial to the Borough.  The Group had been unable to establish any substantial benefits outweighing the negative consequences.  There had been significant bad press for HS2 in the national media recently.  This included a statement by Alistair Darling stating that he no longer supported the project and the Institute of Directors had also announced their opposition.  The accident in France could also not be forgotten and the spiralling costs of running a high speed services in Europe. 

The proposed route had been acknowledged by one of the action groups as the best route.  This route had been challenged by Stoke-on-Trent City Council who were looking at alternative routes.  But even if the route was changed, it was acknowledged that one of the suggestions would be devastating for Kidsgrove.  The HS2 Working Group was of the view that a significant change in the route was unlikely. 

The Chairman stated that the bodies representing local trade and commerce had stated that they broadly supported the HS2 proposals and urged local councils to be innovative and grasp the initiative.  Most of their support hinged on the provision of a new stopping point to serve the conurbation of North Staffordshire.  There was currently no provision for such a station but there were moves to propose sites close to the M6 motorway. The first of these would be near to Stafford Services and the second close to Junction 16. If there was to be an Interim station, the estimated cost was £600 million which was not currently in the HS2 finance model and would therefore have to be financed by other means.  The fact that trains would need ten minutes to slow down and ten minutes to regain their optimum speed in addition to the time for passengers to depart and board would mean a possibly unacceptable increase in journey time.

The Chair identified that nationally, all of the three main political parties were officially supporting HS2.  He was hopeful that the Council could join with Staffordshire County Council and other local Council’s in opposition to HS2.  If however the scheme was pushed through nationally it was important to ensure that the compensation arrangements were fair.  There were however problems with the current arrangements that had been outlined by HS2.  Areas which currently resided outside the area that qualified for automatic compensation could only claim compensation during a period of twelve months after the commencement of the HS2 service, in twenty years time.There was anecdotal evidence that residents were already experiencing a sharp fall in the value of their property.  The demographics of the people affected in the Borough were of an aging population.  If they wished to move before the completion of the project they would be adversely affected  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

To report back revisions made to the Year Two Action Plan of the Newcastle Economic Development Strategy following comments made by the previous meeting of the Scrutiny Committee on 26^th June and the subsequent Cabinet meeting on 17th July 2013.

The Regeneration Manager stated that in May of last year the Council had agreed a five year strategy.  A year two action plan had been drawn up which had received a number of comments by Cabinet and at the previous meeting of the Scrutiny Committee.  The comments essentially centred on the suggestion for actions to be SMART targets.    The appendix to the report reflected the modified and improved action plan.  He pointed out some of the highlights within the action plan. 

A Member asked for an update on the Ryecroft development scheme and the formulation of a simple guide to accompany the action plan and strategy.  In response the Executive Director for Regeneration and Development stated that an outline business case was currently being formulated with the financial information being critically important to this to assess affordability.  He hoped to have the outline business case ready for reporting within the next two cabinet cycles, including a range of options for future provision of office space for the Council.  The guide was something which could be formulated in the future and could take the form of an A4 pamphlet focussing on the priority areas.

A Member thanked Officers for the progress on the new community facility at the former Silverdale Colliery Site he was hopeful that the facility would open in October. 

RESOLVED:

A) That the revisions made to the Borough’s Economic Development Strategy Year Two Action Plan be endorsed. 

B) That the Committee supports the formulation of a simple guide to accompany the Economic Development Action Plan. 

To review the process which led to the recent decision by JCB to take the Blue Planet building in the Chatterley Valley, and consider any lessons for future working.  This includes a review of those things which worked well, those which may have been done differently and assess how the Borough Council might better pursue its efforts to bring more inward investment to the Borough in the future as a result.

The Executive Director for Regeneration and Development stated that the report had tried to capture the layers of complexity involved in handling the inward investment enquiry.  On the Cabinet agenda, there was a sister report which sought Members endorsement of the decision to dispose of land adjacent to Blue Planet, which had been an Officer decision under the Council’s scheme of delegation.  He summarised the key points in the report with a particular focus on the benefits that inter-agency working had achieved.  The report was important because it highlighted the lessons for future working, as well as a number of areas of good practice which had assisted in achieving a successful inward investment decision.  

A Member stated that the Regional Development Agency no longer existed and so this meant it was even more important to work with other partners.  In response the Executive Director for Regeneration and Development stated that as part of City Deal, the Council was working with the Government and Local Enterprise Partnership and strategic Local Authority Partners in order to find more creative ways of bringing difficult sites to market.  It was also important to make best use of the existing funding available.  One particular aspect under review in discussions with the Government was the use of Tax Incremental Financing to fund investment in infrastructure in return for the business rate income obtained by the new development.  A Member asked if there was adequate capacity within the Council to be able to exploit all the funding opportunities available.  In response the Executive Director for Regeneration and Development stated that the Council was seeking different ways to leverage funds and referred to past occasions when the Council had taken a leadership role in preparing land for Development.  Capacity was being built in the LEP to help find new ways of funding development models. 

RESOLVED: That the contents of the report be noted and the Committee takes on board the good lessons learnt for the future. 

To consider a report on the Local Enterprise Planning Charter.  This document will be sent to follow.

The Executive Director for Regeneration and Development presented an interim report on the Local Enterprise Partnership Planning Charter.  Officers once they had met with the LEP consultants would be bringing forward proposals on the steps that were likely to be required to achieve Planning Charter Mark Status.  The Planning Committee would be asked for its views and the comments of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee would also be sought.

RESOLVED: That the interim report be noted.

To discuss and update the work plans to reflect current scrutiny topics

The Chair stated that it was hoped the Committee could consider Broadband as an item in December. 

The Chair stated that Members should give consideration to inviting local organisations to the Scrutiny Committee.  A Member suggested that the education sector and in particular Newcastle-under-Lyme College and Stoke-on-Trent Sixth Form College.  The Committee could scrutinise the work being undertaken to improve skills.   The LEP Education Trust was also suggested as a potential organisation to call to the Committee. 

The Chair stated that a new item had been added to the work plan, “Portfolio Holder Question Time.” The Scrutiny Officer stated that this was an opportunity for the Committee to question the Portfolio Holders on their priorities and work objectives for the next six months and to address any issues or concerns that they may be facing within their portfolio.  It was also an opportunity for the Portfolio Holder to request Scrutiny support in any of the areas they were currently working on and to give a statement to the Committee.  The item therefore helped to fulfil Scrutiny’s role in holding the Executive to account but was also working with the Executive in a critical friend framework and in the development of future policy.  The Chair stated that it would be helpful for the Portfolio Holder to receive questions from Members in advance.

The Executive Director for Regeneration and Development stated that the Asset Management Strategy could be considered by the Committee in December which could incorporate the latest position on the former St. Giles and St, George’s School site, the latter site having been the subject of a question from a Member.  .

A Member stated that the Task and Finish Group which had reported on car parking in the Borough could receive an evaluation report after the six month trial period of parking initiatives which was agreed by Cabinet in July. 

A Member suggested that there should be an interim meeting in November, due to the large gap in between meetings.

RESOLVED: That an interim meeting be held in November which will have the Portfolio Holder Question Time and the Town Centre Partnership on the agenda. 

To consider any business which is urgent within the meaning of Section 100B(4) of  the Local Government Act 1972

There was no urgent business within the meaning of section 100B (4) of the Local Government Act 1972.