Issue - meetings

Following agreement with the Chair to consider a call-in request submitted on Monday 23^rd July 2012 regarding two Cabinet decisions made at the meeting held on Wednesday 18^th July 2012:

item 6. surplus land – proposed newcastle development programme disposals

item 7.site allocations and policies development plan document – draft issues and options consultation paper.

Urgent business had been called to consider a call-in request submitted on Monday 23^rd July 2012 to review the decisions of Cabinet made at its meeting on 18th July 2012, in relation to the proposed Newcastle Development Programme Disposals and the Site Allocations and Policies Development Plan Document (agenda items 6 and 7).

The Chair clarified the procedure for the consideration of the call-in at the meeting, as set out in section 1 of the report on the agenda. It was clarified to the Committee that there were three options they could consider:

(a) Reject the call-in and note the original decision. The decision would take effect on the date of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

(b) Accept the proposal set out in the call-in form and refer back to Cabinet with any comments they wished to make. The Cabinet would then reconsider at the next scheduled Cabinet meeting, amending the decision or not before adopting the final decision.

(c) Accept the proposal set out on the call-in form and refer the matter to Full Council if the decision was deemed to be outside the budget and policy framework.

The lead call-in member gave their explanation of the reasons for the call-in and justification for the proposal set out on the call-in form. A hand-out with excerpts from various sources was distributed, which was referred to by the lead call-in member. It was asserted that the call-in members were not saying the seven sites in question should be developed and nor did the Newcastle Development Programme conclude that the seven sites should not be developed. There was a local need due to local population growth. It was felt that the process was flawed at the beginning and the decision itself was undemocratic. There would be unfair pressure on other sites if the seven sites were excluded now. There had already been representations from Madeley and Audley opposing the Cabinet’s decision.

The Portfolio Holder for Regeneration, Planning and Town Centres Development was unable to attend and sent their apologies. The Leader of the Council gave their explanation of the decision taken and their views on the alternative. The six call-in members were thanked for the robust scrutiny the call-in had created. It was felt that the decision was democratic and this had been part of the party manifesto. There had been a number of recommendations from the NDP Scrutiny Task and Finish Group, of which recommendation no. 10 regarding consultation could be misleading by referring to ‘all’ development sites. Not ‘all’ development sites would be considered, only those that were suitable for housing development. The consultation process for the Site Allocations and Policies Local Plan would not prohibit comment on the seven sites. With regard to being open and transparent, the seven sites had been the most scrutinised pieces of land that the Council owned and the scrutiny for these sites had been one of the most robust scrutiny processes ever conducted at the Council. Sites could be added  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4