Agenda and minutes

None

To agree and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 22 October 2015 (attached).

Actions arising and outcomes.

Referrals made to other bodies.

The minutes of the meeting held on 22 October 2015 were agreed as accurate and were signed by the Chair, subject to the following amendments:

In Minute 22, Botley Supplementary Planning Document (SPD):

·         Under “Consultation on the SPD”, delete 8^th and 9^th bullet points which duplicated earlier text;

·         Under “Vulnerable Residents”, insert “(SVHA) after “Sovereign Vale Housing Association”.

Further to Minute 17, the strategic director reported that the head of housing services had met with representatives of Sovereign Vale Housing Association (SVHA) to outline concerns raised by councillors and to discuss proposals on improved joint working.  The meeting had been productive but SVHA had not yet submitted a formal response.

None.

None.

These would be heard later in the agenda with the item on the Botley Centre Supplementary Planning Document.

To review the attached scrutiny work schedule. Please note, although the dates are confirmed, the items under consideration are subject to being withdrawn, added to or rearranged without further notice.

The following items were added to work schedule with dates to be agreed:

·         Grants scheme review

·         Council/Sovereign Vale Housing Association joint working (SVHA representatives to be invited).

·         Equalities report.

To consider the head of planning’s report.

The Committee considered the report from the head of planning on changes to the proposed Botley Centre Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) since the 30 October 2015 Cabinet meeting and additional public consultation.

Before discussing the issue, the Committee heard the comments and questions of members of the public who had registered to speak.

Mary Gill, a local resident, raised a number of concerns regarding the legality of the process of the preparation and consultation on the SPD, the apparent conflict of interest of the consultants and the proposed heights of the buildings.

Neil Rowley from Savills, the agent for Mace, spoke in favour of the development of the site and gave an update on the public response to Mace’s proposals.

Dr Stephen Parkinson asserted his view that that the process was unlawful as it did not comply with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Act.  He also expressed concern that Sovereign Vale Housing Association (SVHA) had not been asked to comment on the proposals even though Field House was included in the development area.  In his opinion the process reflected badly on the council.

RikiTherivel asked if the SPD would be part of the forthcoming Local Plan or only of the extant Core Strategy.  She also asserted that the sustainability appraisal was not legally compliant.

Mike Murray, the Cabinet member for planning, Adrian Duffield, head of planning and Sophie Horsley, planning policy manager, came to the committee to present the report and answer questions. 

In response to the issues raised by members of the public they reported that:

·         The planning officers were satisfied that the process was lawful;

·         The aims of the SPD were to create a flexible strategy to guide development that supported the existing and future local community and attracted investment to serve the wider district and meet local regeneration aspirations.

·         The planning policy framework of relevance to the SPD consisted of two tiers:  at national level, the National Planning Policy Framework and the National Planning Practice Guidance; at local level, the Vale’s Local Plan 2011;

·         The planning consultants had produced evidence for the SPD but had had no involvement in the decision making process so there was no conflict of interest;

·         There had been two periods of public consultations on the SPD, giving SVHA ample opportunity to comment on the proposals;

·         The SPD was guidance, not policy. As such, officers would need to assess the weight to be given to it and other guidance, such as the Vale’s design guide, when considering the proposed heights of buildings. It would then be for members to consider the officer recommendations when determining planning applications.

In response to further questions and issues raised by the committee, it was reported that:

·         Once the 2031 Local Plan was adopted, it would be necessary to refresh the SPD;

·         The SPD was prepared in isolation from any proposed planning application;

·         Whether the anticipated Mace planning application succeeded or fell, the SPD, if adopted, would continue to apply to any future planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item Sc29