Agenda item

To receive the minutes and consider the recommendations and/or referrals from the following meetings of the Executive Committee:

8th March 2016 – there are no recommendations from this meeting

7^th June 2016 – there are no recommendations from this meeting

12^th July 2016 – there are recommendations from the Committee on the following matters:

Minute no: 16: Borough of Redditch Local Plan No.4 – Proposed Main Modifications;

Minute no. 17: Redditch Local Development Scheme July 2016 and Draft Statement of Community Involvement 2016;

Minute no. 18: Consolidated Revenue and Capital Outturn and Financial Reserves Statement 2015/16.

Copies of the reports to the Executive Committee are enclosed with this agenda and the minutes are enclosed in Minute Book 1.  Details of the recommendations are included in the agenda in front of the relevant reports

Members considered the minutes of the Executive Committee meetings of 8^th March 2016, 7^th June 2016 and 12^th July 2016.  The minutes from the March meeting were for information only as the recommendations had been dealt with at the last ordinary meeting of the Council.  There were no recommendations from the minutes of the meeting held in June.  There were a number of recommendations to be debated from the minutes of the July meeting of the Executive and these were discussed as follows:

Borough of Redditch Local Plan No.4 – Proposed Main Modifications

Members were reminded that the proposed modifications were those which had been put forward by the Inspector and it was clarified that the consultation referred to was in respect of those modifications only and not the plan as a whole.  The consultation period had been extended to take account of the holiday period.

Councillor Juliet Brunner proposed the following amendment:

“The consultation not to commence until the outcome of the ‘notice to hold’ has been formally decided by the DCLG and the Executive Committee and Council has considered a report on the outcome.”

Councillor Brunner explained that she had proposed the amendment due to Karen Lumley, MP having requested a “notice on hold” against the Local Plan No. 4.  It would therefore be prudent for the Council to await the outcome of that request before making a decision and entering into a consultation period.  A consultation could be a costly exercise and one which may have to be repeated should changes following the “notice of hold”.

Officers clarified the “Notice of Hold” process, which entailed the Plan being brought before the Secretary of State. This was a valid mechanism for the MP to use in order to put the Local Plan on hold. The following areas were debated by Members:

·         The Plan was “out of date” already as no account had been taken in respect of the Council’s membership of the West Midlands Combined Authority.

·         Potential flaws within the plan in respect of the location of both housing and commercial sites and the impact on the infrastructure of borough.

·         Whether the deferral of the Plan would impact on any of the Council’s neighbours, for example Bromsgrove District Council.

·         It was reiterated that the amendments within the report were merely those of the Inspector and that the Plan as a whole was not being consulted upon, as this process had already taken place.

·         Whether the Plan had taken into the account the true views of the residents.

Following debate the amendment was declared lost.

Members thanked Officers for their hard work and those residents who had taken the time to respond to previous consultations.  The Council had been transparent during the process and the Inspector was merely asking for a consultation to take place in respect of those amendments.  It was highlighted within the report that the consultation was not an opportunity to raise matters that either were, or could have been, part of the earlier representations or hearings on the submitted Plan and that comments should be confined to the Main Modifications and address the following points:

·         Make clear in what way the published Main Modification is not sound or not legally compliant,

·         Support representation by evidence showing why the Main Modifications should be changed,

·         Say precisely how the Main Modifications should be changed.

Reference was made to particular areas (and the location of the high schools in relation to the proposed housing developments) within the Borough which had been highlighted in the Plan and its impact on transport infrastructure. However, the view was expressed that discussion of these was not appropriate at this time and that Members had previously had an opportunity, through the frequent Planning Advisory Panel meetings, to raise any particular concerns that they might have had in respect of all the points raised.  Consultation had been carried out with neighbouring authorities when preparing the Plan and the Inspector had acknowledged this within his report.

Redditch Local Development Scheme July 2016 and Draft Statement of Community Involvement 2016

Councillor Brunner proposed the following amendment:

“The Council will defer the adoption of the Redditch Local Development Scheme and the 6 week consultation on the draft Statement of Community Involvement until the outcome of the ‘note to hold’ has been formally decided by the DCLG and the Executive Committee and Council have considered a report on the outcome.”

Councillor Brunner explained that again, she had proposed the amendment due to the MP’s request for a “notice on hold” against the Local Plan as it was felt it was not appropriate to make a decision until this process had been completed.  In debating the amendment a number of areas were discussed including:

·         The potential cost to the Council should further amendments be made following the “notice on hold” report being received.

·         It was understood that the Birmingham Local Plan had also been subject to a “notice on hold” and it had been agreed that any further action would be deferred until the process had been completed.

·         Concerns around the Local Plan No. 4 in its current format.

·         The recommendation before Members was in respect of how the Council would deal with consultations in the future; it was suggested that the documents should be agreed in their current formats to enable work to proceed.

·         The reasons why the MP had found it necessary to instigate the “notice on hold” process and when this had happened.

Following debate the amendment was declared lost.

Consolidated Revenue and Capital Outturn and Financial Reserves Statement 2015/16

Concerns were raised in respect of vacant posts which had not been filled and that savings had been made due to funds being earmarked for specific areas and the work which these related to had not been carried out.

Councillor John Fisher gave his thanks to the Section 151 Officer and her staff for completing the accounts for 2015/16 and to officers for making savings in excess of those which were expected.  This had led to a £40k improvement in the Council’s general fund balances.

RESOLVED that in relation to the meeting of the Executive Committee of 12th July

a)    the recommended Main Modifications of the Inspector, as set out in Appendix 1 of the report, be noted, and that Officers be authorised to proceed with an 8-week consultation on the Main Modifications, to run from 27th July 2016 to 21st September 2016.  Details of the method of consultation are set out in paragraphs 3.19 to 3.22 of the report;

b)   the revised Redditch Local Development Scheme (LDS), as set out in Appendix 1 to the report, be adopted as the Council’s current LDS;

c)    delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning and Regeneration Services, in conjunction with the relevant Portfolio Holder, to review and publish amended LDS timetables for the publication of the Development Plan Documents;

d)   the draft Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) 2016, as set out in Appendix 2 to the report, be approved for publication as part of a 6-week period of public consultation in September – October 2016; and

e)    delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning and Regeneration Services, in conjunction with the relevant Portfolio Holder, to consider the response to the public consultation and, subject to no significant issues arising, to amend and adopt the SCI.

f)     the transfer to balances of £40k be approved;

g)   the movement in reserves, as detailed in Appendix 2 to the report, be approved; and

h)   the Minutes of the meetings of the Executive Committee held on 8^th March 2016, 7^th June 2016 and 12^th July 2016 be received and adopted.