Agenda and minutes

There were no declarations of interest stated.

To consider the minutes of the last meeting of the Committee.

Resolved:     That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 7^th December 2023 be agreed as accurate record.

The Chair informed the Committee of the new sound system and welcomed members of the public present in the audience, reminding them of the protocol for speaking at meetings.

There were no updates required from Cabinet.

The Deputy Leader introduced the report on Knutton Masterplan.

Members asked questions and responses were provided as follows.

Cllr Edington Plunkett wondered about the tendering process and the maintenance of green space. – The original successful tenderer had withdrawn their offer due to a lack of management resources to undertake the works and the tendering rules did not allow to go directly to the second bidder. Discussions had now started with the latter and a new tender was to be issued. About grounds maintenance, this would be transferred to the group taking over the management of the site who would be working alongside the street scene.

Cllr Moss enquired about the High Street development proposals in relation to green space currently used by dog walkers. – This would be subject to consultation as part of the asset management plan.

Cllr Moss also wished for the committee to be kept up to date on the choice of the group who would be running the community centre. – This would be taken into account and brought back to members at a future meeting.

Resolved:     That the report on progress with the delivery of the Knutton Masterplan be noted.

Watch the debate here

The Deputy Leader went through the report on the delivery of the Town Deal and Future High Street Funds which was submitted to the Finance, Assets and Performance Scrutiny Committee the previous week.

Cllr Edington-Plunkett asked about the new hotel, the data available for hotels around the area and the sort of market the Council was looking at. – This would be a mid-range hotel and risks would be supported by Capital and Centric. A feasibility and business case had been undertaken to understand the demand and a national consultancy company had estimated a 63% occupancy in the first year.

Cllr Edington-Plunkett enquired about timescales and proposed that Capital and Centric be invited to the committee to answer any questions from members. This was seconded by Cllr Grocott and passed with 5 votes in favour and 5 abstentions.

Cllr Grocott wished for members to be kept up to date until the next meeting. – The process had reached a slow stage with feasibility study and planning application towards the end of the year. It was now unlikely that things would change as they had in the past and an update would be provided in July.

Cllr Gorton asked about a deserted building in the town centre – It was hoped that the regeneration projects would attract businesses that could potentially fill in the building.

Resolved:     1) That the report on the delivery of the Town Deal and Future High Street Funds projects be noted.

                        2) That Capital and Centric be invited to a future committee meeting to answer questions from members.

Watch the debate here

The Portfolio Holder for Strategic Planning introduced the report on the Borough Local Plan. The draft document was expected at the beginning of July and a special meeting would be taking place then in addition to Committee and Full Council meetings.

Questions received from members of the public were shared and responses were provided as follows.

Public question 1:

“Given that no representations under Regulation 18, no petitions and no correspondence from parish councils have suggested that there is no need for a Local Plan (rather, they were arguing that the proposed Local Plan is unsound and needs amending), why has the Leader of the Borough Council stated at a Cabinet meeting that "we do get from some certain sectors of the community that we shouldn't be having a Local Plan because we've got a falling population"? Where is the evidence for this statement?”

– Not having a local plan leaves the borough much more vulnerable to opportunistic development and the Leader was addressing comments against having a local plan.

Public question 2:

“Given that the population of the Borough has only increased by 8,080 in the past four decades (from 117,217 in 1981 to 125,297 in 2022), that's a 6.9% increase over forty years, why is the Local Planning Authority planning for over 7,300 new houses in the Borough despite the amended NPPF clearly stating that the standard method of calculating housing need is only "an advisory starting point" and local constraints such as Green Belt may reduce the figure, that Green Belt land does not have to be released for new houses and that the best and most versatile agricultural land should be retained?”

– The standard method was used to calculate housing needs in line with the National Planning Policy Framework. Population projections were included along with market signals, assessments of affordability and economic growth. The Local Plan would be reviewed by an independent inspector.

About exceptional circumstances required to alter the green belt boundaries and the loss of farming land, the benefits of moving into one direction would need to outweigh those of the status quo. These would be published along the consultation material and then presented to the inspector so that the reasons given could be challenged. About the population statistics, these were released by the Office of National Statistics and an update could be provided at the next Committee meeting.

It was clarified that brownfields sites should be developed first, some funding being available to mitigate the development of new infrastructures and contaminated lands. The Environmental Health team and County Council would be consulted and a sustainable transport assessment would be undertaken notably looking into whether air quality mitigation measures would be required.

Public question 3:

“In light of comments made during the Regulation 18 consultation on the Local Plan by a Borough Councillor that they can't, as a member of the Planning Committee, discuss planning matters, will the Borough Council encourage all members to engage with residents on all planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The Chair requested that the work programme for June feature an update from HS2 and notably the impact of the cancellation of phase 2A.

Resolved:     That the work programme be noted.

Watch the debate here

Any member of the public wishing to submit a question must serve two clear days’ notice, in writing, of any such question to the Borough Council.

Questions received from members of the public were addressed under item 7.

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.