Meeting documents

AVDC Development etc Scrutiny Committee
Wednesday, 5th September, 2001

Document: 2001-09-05 SCRUTINY COMMITTEE - DEVELOPMENT, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENT
 

PRESENT: Councillor Mrs Davies (Chairman);  Councillors Barclay, Mrs Brandis (in place of Councillor Jennings), Mrs Butler, Cole, Cooper, Evett, Isham, Metherell, Newman, Mrs Willetts and Mrs Worgan.  Councillors Baldwin, Griffin, Mrs Lambert and Mrs Paternoster attended also.
 

APOLOGY: Councillor Jennings.
 

1.

MINUTES
 

RESOLVED -
 

That the Minutes of 20th June, 2001 be approved as a correct record.
 

2.

AYLESBURY LAND USE/TRANSPORT STRATEGY - DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS
 

Members received a report from the Director of Planning, Property and Construction Services which had been considered by the Cabinet on 28th August, 2001.  The report proposed changes to the Council's adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on non-MDA (major development areas) development contributions towards implementation of the Aylesbury Land Use/Transport (ALUT) Strategy.  The Cabinet had decided:-
 

·

that developer contributions be based on vehicle trips rather than person trips;
 

·

that the following uses be exempt from any payment:-
 

·

Sheltered housing schemes - a Class C2 use type; and
 

·

public halls - Class D1 use type;
 

·

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

The remaining recommendations in the report to the Cabinet had not been accepted.
 

Circulated also was a note of a number of issues raised by the Cabinet to the proposed changes and points arising therefrom, Buckinghamshire County Council's comments on the issues and the Officers' response to those comments.
 

Prior to consideration of the report, a presentation was given by the Acting Head of Forward Plans on the ALUT Strategy and the proposed changes.  The purpose of the developer contributions was to secure equitable funding from non-MDA brownfield and windfall development.
 

Members endorsed the Cabinet resolutions in relation to vehicle trips and thresholds but did not support the inclusion of sheltered housing schemes as a specific exemption.  With regard to this aspect the criticisms raised by County Council Officers about sheltered housing schemes were accepted.  It was agreed that such developments were a low traffic generator and could be covered by the threshold policy.  It was however felt that the recommendations regarding public halls could be accepted although it would be necessary for the Development Control Committee to be specific about the type of applications that were described as public halls.
 

The Committee supported the 24.8% of the £20.349 Million in principle but could not accept the County alternative proposal that contributions be sought from brownfield/windfall sites on the basis that they represented 33.3% - 37.4% of non-MDA traffic growth.  The Committee was largely supportive of the principle that developments should pay for 100% of their impact on the transport system but was anxious to ensure that any revised SPG did not harm the economic vitality of Aylesbury as a sub-regional centre.
 

RESOLVED -
 

(1)

That the Cabinet be asked to accept the following modifications to the SPG on developer contributions:-
 

(a)

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

(b)

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.
 

(c)

That the cost per vehicle trip be set at between £300-£367 per trip, (i.e. up to 24.8% of the total LTP shortfall of £20.349 million divided by the 13,762 vehicle trips derived from brownfield/windfall developments).
 

(d)

That the following use be exempt from any payment:
 

·

Public Halls - a Class D1 use type
 

(e)

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

(2)

That the recommended revisions to the draft SPG be adopted for development control purposes as an interim measure prior to formal adoption after consultation (subject to legal advice).
 

(3)

That the cost per vehicle trip be reviewed every two years in order for the success of the scheme in raising the required revenue to be reviewed.
 

3.

SITES A AND B, MAXWELL POOL AND CANAL BASIN - AYLESBURY TOWN CENTRE
 

Members received the report of the Director of Planning, Property and Construction Services on Sites A and B (Maxwell Pool and the Canal Basin) which had been considered by the Cabinet on 28th August, 2001.
 

The Cabinet had reached some preliminary conclusions about the way forward which it felt should be tested with this Committee before it submitted firm proposals to the Council.  Drawing on Paragraph 6 of the report, these preliminary conclusions included the Council working in partnership with a developer to provide a scheme which expanded the retail offer in Aylesbury and, potentially re-provided the Civic Centre.
 

The Cabinet had also felt that the Council should appoint a Project Manager for the scheme and aim to determine a scheme within a timescale of one year.  It had been noted by the Cabinet that any proposals from developers might impact on the Council's future office accommodation strategy.
 

Members were generally in agreement with the proposed way forward for implementing the development.  It was therefore
 

RESOLVED -
 

(1)

That the Cabinet be advised that this Committee concurred generally with its initial views regarding the development of these sites based on the broad parameters set out in (a) to (h) of Paragraph 6 of the report referred to above.
 

(2)

That the need for a hotel on the site be researched.
 

(3)

That the Council's land ownership be retained.
 

(4)

That the appointment of a Project Manager be supported.
 

(5)

That the need for public consultation be defined further.
 

(6)

That a seminar be arranged for all Members regarding the projects.
 

NOTE:

Councillor Cooper declared an interest under the Voluntary Code when reference was made to the Queens Park Centre during the discussions in respect of the above item.
 

4.

BEST VALUE FUNDAMENTAL CHALLENGES OF PLANNING, DESIGN SERVICES AND ESTATES AND OPERATIONS
 

The Committee received the report of the Director of Planning, Property and Construction Services which had been submitted to the Cabinet in July, 2001 on the fundamental challenges for Planning, Design Services and Estates Operations carried out in relation to the Best Value process.
 

The review process had been divided into three stages.  The report included details of Stage 1 carried out between April and July, 2001.  Also included were the areas identified for further review and the production of improvement plans under Stage 2 of the process.  

 

RESOLVED -
 

(1)

That the results of the fundamental challenges for Planning, Design Services and Estates and Operations be noted and the areas identified for further review and the production of improvement plans under Stage 2 of the Best Value process be endorsed.
 

(2)

That the following Members be appointed to take part in the further review under Stage 2 of the Best Value process in respect of the services indicated:-
 

 
 

Member

Service

Councillor Cooper

Planning

Councillor Mrs Willetts

Design Services

Councillor Mrs Davies

Estates and Operations
 

 
 

5.

OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY OF FLOODING
 

RESOLVED -
 

That Councillor Mrs Willetts be appointed to participate in the work of the County Environment of Bucks Overview and Scrutiny Committee in reviewing issues relating to flooding.
 

6.

CONDUCTING A SCRUTINY REVIEW AND THE COUNCIL'S STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES
 

The Committee noted a paper from a recent Seminar on the framework for conducting a Scrutiny Review which had been circulated at the request of the Chairman.
 

Circulated also was a copy of the Council's adopted Strategic Objectives together with the Lead Member and Officer for each of the issues.
 

In August, 2001, the Cabinet had approved the assignment of responsibility as detailed in the schedule.  The service planning process would help to identify where there were further dependencies in relation to each of the actions related to the Strategic Objectives.
 

This Committee would have the greatest interest in the Strategic Objectives of supporting the Environment, Promoting Economic Development and the effects of Planned Development.  However, there might be issues in some of the other objectives that would be of interest, due to the inter-relationship between them.
 

RESOLVED -
 

That the advice on conducting a Scrutiny Review and the Council's Strategic Objectives be noted.
 

7.

WORK PROGRAMME
 

Having considered the future work programme for this Committee, it was
 

RESOLVED -
 

(1)

That arrangements be made for an additional meeting of this Committee to be held on 17th December, 2001.
 

(2)

That the work programme be as set out in the Appendix to these Minutes.