Meeting documents

AVDC Council
Wednesday, 14th November, 2001

Document: 2001-11-14 AYLESBURY VALE DISTRICT COUNCIL
 

PRESENT:  Councillor Mrs C Lambert (Chairman); Councillors C R Ashenden, M A Baldwin, K Barclay, Mrs V M Baxter,  Mrs J M Brandis, Mrs M Butler, H H Cadd, J W Cartwright, M P J C Cashman, W J Y Chapple, J C Cole, P A Cooper, Mrs A C Davies,  D P Fitzsimons, R V Ghent, Mrs  D N Glover, D R Isham, C R James, Mrs P M Jamieson, J A Jennings, C Jones, S Kennell, R W Khan, I R Lindsay, K Liverseidge, I P Metherell, N Mohammad, Mrs M B Morgan-Owen, J A Newman, Mrs C M Paternoster, S J Patrick, Mrs M Payne, Mrs P D J Pearce, Mrs S F Polhill, D G Ralph, Miss G F Reynolds, C G Richards, Mrs F D Roberts, MBE JP, D J Rowlands, B D Searle, Mrs G V Smith, Sir Beville D Stanier Bt, Group Capt J F Stewart, N Stuart, Mrs C S Willetts, Mrs R V Worgan and Mrs T A Yasin.
 

APOLOGIES:  Councillors D N Attree, D F Evett, B E Foster, B M Griffin,

 

Mrs P M Y Hannelly, Mrs S S R Kendrick and A N Sherwell.
 

1.

MINUTES
 

RESOLVED -
 

That the Minutes of 17th October, 2001 be approved as a correct record.
 

2.

ANNOUNCEMENTS
 

(a)

Mr Alan Baker
 

Members were sad to hear of the death on 25th October, 2001 of Mr Alan Baker.  Mr Baker had been the Council's Director of Finance and Administration from 1991 to 1998, when he had left the Authority to become Chief Executive of Ashford Borough Council.  The Chairman had written to Mrs Baker expressing condolences on behalf of the Council.
 

(b)

Royal Visit
 

The Chairman thanked all those Members who had been able to attend the official opening of the Aquavale Swim Centre by their Royal Highnesses the Earl and Countess of Wessex.
 

(c)

Remembrance Sunday
 

The Chairman also indicated that the Remembrance Service had been extremely well attended by Members and the public.
 

(d)

Aylesbury United Football Club
 

Members wished every success to Aylesbury United Football Club who would be playing Football League side Port Vale in the first round proper of the FA Cup on Saturday, 7th December, 2001.
 

(e)

Cabinet Meetings
 

The Leader of the Council, in recognising Members' wish to have a greater input to the decision-making process under the new political management arrangements, indicated that he proposed for a trial period, to issue a standing invitation to non-Cabinet Members to meet Cabinet Members for an hour before Cabinet meetings.  The principal purpose would be to enable non-Cabinet Members to express views to the Cabinet on matters which would be subject to discussion by the Cabinet later in the evening.  However, this would also provide another opportunity to ask Cabinet Members general questions or raise issues which might form the basis of a future report to the Cabinet.
 

Members welcomed the suggestion, although it was commented that the start time might need adjustment in order to ensure that as many Members as possible, who wished to attend, could do so, having regard to their other commitments.  The Leader of the Council indicated that he wished Group Leaders to consider the detailed aspects of the proposal, although he saw no particular difficulty in adjusting starting times.
 

3.

BEDGROVE WARD - VACANCY
 

The Chief Executive reported the resignation on 25th October, 2001, of Mrs J E Peart as a Councillor for the Bedgrove Ward.  It was noted that the by-election would take place on 13th December, 2001.
 

4.

CABINET REPORTS
 

The Cabinet Members for Environment and Health, Asset Management and Personnel and Support Services submitted progress reports concerning their respective portfolio areas.  Each Cabinet Member answered questions raised by other Members on the issues set out in each report.
 

5.

ALUT STRATEGY - DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS SPG
 

The purpose of the developer contribution SPG was to ensure that funding secured from non-MDA development was used to bring forward the implementation of the transportation strategy contained in the Local Transport Plan.  It formed an integral part of the emerging District Local Plan, and had been adopted by the Council in May, 2000, after public consultation.  Contributions would be proportionate to the additional traffic generation brought about by the development.
 

Consideration was given to the report prepared by the Director of Planning, Property and Construction Services setting out previous discussions at Cabinet, Scrutiny Committee - Development, Economic Development and the Environment, and the ALUTs Panel regarding proposed changes to the adopted SPG.  The changes were designed to add clarity and make it simpler to calculate contributions.  They also introduced exemptions and thresholds which it had been felt would benefit small businesses and community development proposals.
 

RESOLVED -
 

(1)

That developer contributions be based on vehicle trips rather than person trips.
 

(2)

That developer contributions be sought on the basis that brownfield developments within the town would represent 24.8% of all (non-MDA) related increased traffic generated.
 

(3)

That the cost per vehicle trip be set at £319 per trip.
 

(4)

That the following use be exempt from any payment:-
 

·

Public Halls - a Class D1 use type.
 

(5)

That the thresholds for payments be increased to the equivalent of 50 vehicle trips per day for all types of development.
 

(6)

That the above revisions to the draft SPG be adopted for Development Control purposes as an immediate interim measure, prior to formal adoption after consultation.
 

(7)

That the implementation of the Strategy be subject to ongoing review by the ALUTs Panel and the cost per vehicle trip be reviewed every two years, in order to assess the success of the scheme in raising the required revenue and implementing the agreed programme.
 

 
 

NOTE:

(a)

Councillor Mohammad declared an interest in the above matter under the Voluntary Code and left the meeting.

 

(b)

Councillor Rowlands declared an interest in the above matter under the Voluntary Code and did not speak or vote thereon.
 

 
 

6.

CAPITAL STRATEGY AND ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN
 

The Council was required to submit the Capital Asset and Management Plan to the Government Office for the South East (GOSE).  The document had been endorsed by the Cabinet and the Scrutiny Committee - Resources and Customer Care.  As this was a policy framework issue, the document required approval by full Council.
 

RESOLVED -
 

That the Capital Strategy and Asset Management Plan be adopted and a final version submitted to the Government Office for the South East.
 

7.

POSSIBLE AREA ARRANGEMENTS
 

At its meeting on 7th March, 2001, the Council had dealt with the overall approach to developing the new political management arrangements.  It had, however, been decided that consideration of possible area arrangements should be deferred until November, 2001.
 

Consideration was accordingly given to a report presented by the Leader of the Council summarising Government Guidance and the discussions that had taken place at meetings of the informal group of Members formed to consider this issue.  The report also contained details of indicative working arrangements in relation to a pilot scheme.  The informal group considered that in the longer term, a flexible, rather than a universal approach, would be best, with arrangements being based upon groups of Parishes with a particular focus of interest (which might change from time to time).
 

RESOLVED -
 

(1)

That a pilot Local Forum based on the indicative working arrangements set out in the Appendix to the report submitted, be pursued.
 

(2)

That expressions of interest be sought from Parishes that might wish to participate in the pilot scheme.
 

(3)

That the Chief Executive be authorised to take any action in connection with the setting up of the pilot arrangements.
 

(4)

That the informal Member Group be retained to monitor the scheme and report back in twelve months time.
 

(5)

That the Parish Forum continue to be held as a means of maintaining contact with other Parishes during the term of the pilot scheme.
 

8.

WRITTEN QUESTIONS
 

Written questions submitted in accordance with Standing Orders were dealt with as follows:-
 

A.

FROM COUNCILLOR COOPER TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR ENVIRONMENT AND HEALTH
 

Questions
 

“Between 21st August and 15th October, 2001, Bucks County Council housed a family of travellers at the highways department storage area located on the A418 road between Rowsham Village and the Wingrave Crossroads.  The encampment consisted of up to six caravans and associated cars and vans.
 

I wish to be advised of four aspects of the actions taken by the AVDC and the County Council.
 

(1)

What are the detailed costs for accommodating the “family” including:-
 

(a)

The rubbish skips provided
 

(b)

The portaloo (including insurance costs for its theft)
 

(c)

Removal and reinstatement of the security bunding
 

(d)

Removal of the six scrap cars from the site
 

(e)

Removal of the three scrap cars dumped at the lay by south of Rowsham
 

(f)

Removal of the scrap caravan dumped at the bus stop at Wingrave crossroads
 

(g)

Clearing rubbish from the site after it was vacated
 

(h)

Officer time by AVDC
 

(i)

Officer time for BCC
 

(2)

Can figures be obtained from the Police concerning local crime figures during the period 21st August to 15th October compared to a similar control period?
 

(3)

Are there planning implications in housing travellers in this way at this location, or any similar location?
 

(4)

Were the highways department consulted about the road safety aspects of using this site for accommodation purposes bearing in mind its proximity to the busy A418?”
 

Answers
 

“Between 21st August and 15th October, 2001, Bucks County Council housed a family of travellers at the highways department storage area located on the A418 road between Rowsham Village and the Wingrave Crossroads.  The encampment consisted of six caravans and associated cars and vans.
 

A series of questions regarding this encampment has been submitted to Councillor Rowlands, the Cabinet Member for Environment and Health.  The answers to the questions are given below:-
 

(a)

£315
 

(b)

£945
 

(c)

£100
 

(d)

£265
 

(e)

£112
 

(f)

£72.50
 

(g)

There was a considerable quantity of non-hazardous waste in the layby before the Travellers occupied the site.  Therefore not all of the clearance costs related to the Travellers.  The County Council are obtaining quotes at the moment for removal of the material.
 

(h)

5 hours (includes handling enquiries and site visits)
 

(i)

The County Council do not distinguish between different encampments on highway land, so are not able to provide a time spent on this individual case.
 

(2)

The Police have been consulted on this question.  The information requested is not easy to access since crime statistics are recorded by Police Beat Code so someone would have to manually access the statistical evidence.  It is also very difficult to prove a causal link of the crime without researching each crime to determine the origin of the offenders.  This means that the information produced could be misleading, and as such it is advised that this data would not assist in the understanding of the local impact of this encampment.  It is much more pertinent to consider the fear of crime generated by the encampment, which is already apparent through the level of concern expressed by local people.
 

(3)

A planning application would have been required in this case once the layby had been occupied for more than 28 days.  At the time when the Travellers were moved to the layby it was not anticipated that the occupation of the land would be for more than 28 days.  However the occupation of the layby was longer than anticipated although enforcement action was not pursued as the Council was fully aware that the Travellers were to be moved once the medical and re-housing issues had been resolved.  The County Council has been made aware of the need to submit a planning application after any land is occupied for more than 28 days.
 

(4)

The highway authority was consulted and agreed that Travellers could temporarily use the layby, as there was a separation from the main road.  Members may also wish to note that the highway manager advised that this was one of the only areas available for the Travellers within the locality.”
 

B.

FROM COUNCILLOR STUART TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
 

Questions
 

“A decision was taken by Full Council on 8th March, 2000 to proceed with the compulsory purchase of 12 Townsend Green, Haddenham.
 

At the Cabinet meeting on 6th November, the cost of rebuilding the property was not available when asked for by another Cabinet Member.
 

(1)

Would you please explain why no costings had been prepared between 8th March, 2000 and 6th November, 2001 and were not able to be reported to the meeting?
 

(2)

Would you please explain why, in a report carried by BBC News in their evening bulletin on 6th November, it was reported that the building was too expensive to repair?
 

(3)

Would you please confirm whether you and the Chief Executive of the Council, in his capacity as senior adviser to the Cabinet, issued a press release before the Cabinet meeting on 6th November and, if so, why this has not been made available to Members?
 

(4)

Would you please confirm, considering the timing of the BBC report, whether a decision was taken by some or all Members of the Cabinet before the item was discussed in public on 6th November?
 

(5)

Would you please advise why no contact has been made with myself, as a local member, to establish the background and seriousness of the whole issue to the residents of Haddenham?”
 

Answers
 

(1)

“Officers have prepared costings for the rebuilding of the property.  However, these figures cannot be finalised until the CPO is confirmed and confirmation depends on the outcome of the Public Inquiry on 27th and 28th November.  A final decision on confirmation is therefore still some months away.  At the Cabinet meeting I refused to answer any questions concerning finance because that was not the forum for such a debate (and any figures given could prejudice negotiations for sale of the property in the future should the CPO be confirmed).  The matter before Cabinet was to re-examine the appropriateness of the CPO in the light of the Human Rights Act.
 

On Wednesday, 7th November, Nicholas Brookes of the Bucks Herald telephoned me for details of the figures to which reference was made at the Cabinet meeting.  I explained to him that tender figures for carrying out the works were not available but a budget was included in the Council's estimates.  I also explained that the compensation payable could ultimately be decided by the Lands Tribunals, which deals with disputes over compensation if the parties cannot agree.
 

If the CPO is confirmed, AVDC has 2 options:
 

·

to sell the property with a condition that the specified repairs are carried out, in which case the cost of repairs will be a private matter for the new owner, or
 

·

to carry out repairs and sell the property.  Only at this stage would AVDC ask for tenders for the repairs.  Officer's advice is that, even if we had to go along this route, we should cover our costs.
 

(2)

The BBC news bulletin on 6th November did not state that 12 Townsend is too expensive to repair, and certainly I have never made such a comment.  Following the report on 12 Townsend the BBC showed clips of the collapse of the wychert wall of the chapel in Haddenham, and made the point that the repair of this chapel will be expensive for the local community.
 

(3)

A press release was issued on 7th November, after the Cabinet meeting.  It went to all Members on the e-mail pilot straight away and other Members received it in the next available pouch, which in this case was Tuesday, 13th November.  In respect of the contact from the BBC, I understand that they have been tracking this item and have in fact been ringing officers regularly to keep abreast of any reports going to Committee/Council etc.  Therefore, I assume the BBC picked the item up from the publication of the Cabinet Agenda.
 

(4)

No decision was taken by anybody before the Cabinet meeting on Tuesday, 6th November.  The clip shown of 12 Townsend was only a short section of a much longer interview with myself and the Historic Buildings Officer, Ruth Gibson.  In the full interview I stated that the report was going to Cabinet on Tuesday evening so that Cabinet could consider the CPO in light of the Human Rights Act.  The decision to issue the CPO was made at full Council in March, 2000, and is Council policy.
 

(5)

The matter being considered by Cabinet on 6th November was the issuing of the CPO in the light of the Human Rights Act, not the issuing of the CPO per se.  The policy decision to issue the CPO was taken by Council in March, 2000, when I am sure that Councillor Stuart explained to Councillors the background and seriousness of the whole issue to the residents of Haddenham.  There is a Public Inquiry on 27th and 28th November when both sides will have the opportunity of putting their case to the Inspector.”
 

C.

FROM COUNCILLOR MRS ROBERTS TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
 

Question
 

“Why are articulated lorries allowed to “stack up” in Vale Park Drive awaiting access to the Dayla premises?”
 

Answer
 

“In order to be able to answer this question, I contacted Buck County Council as Highway Authority.  Any 'peak time' loading ban in effect on Vale Park Drive is a matter for enforcement by Thames Valley Police.  The County Council is not aware that there are any particular problems that arise from this parking.  The road is a dual carriageway at this location and vehicles approaching the HGVs tend to simply filter around them.”