Meeting documents
Document: | 2002-11-20 SCRUTINY COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENT |
PRESENT: Councillor Mrs Davies (Chairman); Councillors Cole, Cooper, Evett, Isham, Jennings, Metherell, Sherwin (in place of Newman) and Mrs Willetts. Councillors Mrs Glover, Mrs Jamieson and Rowlands attended also. |
|||
APOLOGIES: Councillors Mrs Butler, Newman, Mrs Paternoster and Mrs Worgan. |
|||
|
|||
RESOLVED – |
|||
That the Minutes of 29th October, 2002 be approved as a correct record. |
|||
|
|||
The Committee received a report, circulated to all Members of the Council, setting out the latest position on the urban capacity study and the timetable for progressing the plan. The report also contained a summary of the results of the public consultation exercise. |
|||
With regard to the public consultation exercise, the Committee was advised that 6,069 responses had been received, of which 96% had been from local residents. Responses from Aylesbury Vale had formed the largest group at 2,229. The report summarised the views expressed, with particular reference to the total housing requirement; the need to identify reserve green field sites given the uncertainty surrounding brownfield land supply; protection of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the preservation of green belt land; the need for affordable housing and housing for key workers; and the need to maintain a balance between housing on brownfield sites and maintaining a balanced economy. In Aylesbury Vale, respondents had favoured Option C (local employment needs led), and had considered Option D (Aylesbury focus) to be the least acceptable. |
|||
The report outlined the initial results of the Urban Capacity Study (UCS). Further work was however required with the Districts to consider the assumptions made in the UCS in order to test and add robustness to the initial estimates. |
|||
Members noted that the County Structure Plan Review Joint Panel was expected to consider the Deposit Draft Plan in January/February, 2003, with the County Council Cabinet agreeing the Plan in February. The County Council was expected to agree the Plan on 27th February, 2003. The Plan would then need to be printed and it was anticipated that public consultation would take place between the end of May and early July, 2003. An Examination in Public was anticipated in late 2003, with adoption in August, 2004 |
|||
Concern was expressed that the housing figures for Aylesbury Vale were not yet available for public debate. Accordingly, it was felt that the Cabinet Member for Planned Development should address this issue with her County Council counterpart. Members also felt that provision should be made within the Committee's work programme for an additional meeting in June, 2003. This would fall within the anticipated period for public consultation. |
|||
RESOLVED – |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
The Committee considered a report, submitted also to Cabinet on 19th November, 2002, setting out the recommendations of the Inspector where he felt that no modifications should be made to the plan, or those which he felt should be made in accordance with “Proposed Changes†or “Further Proposed Changes†previously agreed by the Council. The report contained details of the suggested responses which Cabinet had felt could be recommended for approval. |
|||
RESOLVED – |
|||
That this Committee concurs with the suggested responses recommended by Cabinet. |
|||
|
|||
Consideration was given to a report containing the Inspector's recommendations regarding changes to the wording of policies and text in Chapter 4 of the Plan. The report also contained the suggested responses recommended by Cabinet at its meeting on 19th November, 2002. |
|||
|
|||
RESOLVED – |
|||
That this Committee concurs with the suggested responses recommended by Cabinet. |
|||
|
|||
The Committee considered a report containing details of the recommendations of the Inspector on how the plan should be modified in response to objections relating to Chapters 1 & 2 – Summary and Introduction. This report too had been considered by Cabinet on 19th November, 2002. |
|||
RESOLVED – |
|||
That this Committee concurs with the suggested responses recommended by Cabinet. |
|||
|
|||
London/Luton Airport (LLA) advised the Council in December, 1999 of its intention to apply to the Director of Airspace Policy at the Civil Aviation Authority, for an extension to the north-west part of the Luton controlled airspace in the vicinity of Wing. LLA explained that they wished to change the routes in order to ensure that flight paths did not cross, thereby minimising the risk from in-flight collision, and thus increasing the degree of safety in their operations. The proposed change would also allow for a “continuous descent approachâ€Â, which was best practice in terms of reducing noise levels. The proposals had been considered by the former Environment and Health Committee and it had been agreed that the Council should object to these proposals as inadequate detail had been provided about the impact of noise on local residents within the Vale. |
|||
Subsequently, following consultations between the Director of Airspace Policy and LLA, the latter were asked to reconsider their proposals as the route proposed flew directly over densely populated areas of Leighton Buzzard. It then became apparent that LLA's preferred proposal would have an even greater impact on local residents than any of the previous proposals. In April, 2002, the Cabinet Member for Environment and Health had written to LLA objecting to any proposals that would adversely affect local residents. A copy of that letter was submitted. |
|||
In July, 2002, LLA initiated consultation in respect of 4 options. The report submitted contained a description of each option (provided by LLA). The LLA appraisal could be summarised as follows:- |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
The options proposed would increase the number of Vale residents adversely affected by traffic movements. This was particularly true of option 3 – LLA's preferred option. |
|||
The Cabinet Member had previously indicated that he would be happy to supplement his initial response if the Scrutiny Committee felt that further comments were necessary. |
|||
Representatives from LLA and local action groups had been invited to this meeting to comment on the proposals. The representatives gave a presentation from their own perspective, during which Members of the Committee were able to ask questions and seek clarification of particular issues. After discussion of the issues raised, the Committee |
|||
RESOLVED – |
|||
That in the light of the discussions at this meeting, the Cabinet Member for Environment and Health be asked to make an additional response to the London/Luton Airport Western Airspace Consultation Team indicating that this Council:- |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|