Agenda item

To receive the following questions from councillors under standing order 12.

A.           Question from Councillor Judy Roberts to Councillor Charlotte Dickson, Cabinet member for leisure.

Could the Cabinet member please explain the reasons for the delay in publication of the Village and Community Halls Survey, which was due in July 2015?

B.           Question from Councillor Helen Pighills to Councillor Charlotte Dickson, Cabinet member for leisure.

In the consultation on Abbey Meadows the public were overwhelmingly in support of Scenario A: ‘A place to swim and play’

The consultation leaflet stated ‘We would aim to carry out essential repairs to the swimming pool and changing rooms'.

Furthermore under ‘Improvements we can make', the leaflet listed 'Repair the outdoor swimming pool' with ‘refurbish the changing rooms’ appearing in the ‘Additional improvements we will consider’.

Why then does the recently issued cabinet decision include refurbishment of the changing rooms with no mention of essential repairs to and upgrading of the pool including its ageing pool tank and heating/filtration system?

C.           Question from Councillor Dudley Hoddinott to Councillor Roger Cox, Cabinet member for planning (development management and enforcement)

Objectors to planning applications often raise the issue of cumulative harm. There may be many applications in one area that together cause significant harm. Or there may be many harms from a single application where each one alone is not reason enough to refuse but cumulatively they might be. How do we consider the impact of cumulative harm and what can the council do to prevent it?

D.           Question from Councillor Emily Smith to Councillor Mike Murray, Cabinet member for planning policy

The planning department’s Statement of Community Involvement defines what the public can expect in term of communications and consultations from planning. It's so out of date it lists Dr Evan Harris as our MP to be consulted. Why hasn't this important policy document been kept up to date?

E.           Question from Councillor Debby Hallett to Councillor Mike Murray, Cabinet member for planning policy

The Cabinet has promised to take care of my interests across the Vale with enterprise, energy and efficiency. I don’t know what they mean by ‘enterprise’. ‘Energy’ isn’t enough if it doesn’t produce a good result. Tonight I’m interested in ‘efficiency’. Could the Cabinet member please report the total costs so far to create the emerging Local Plan? Please include all costs: officers, consultants, travel & food, phone calls, consultation, printing and distribution, and everything else that we have invested so far in producing our emerging Local Plan.

A.   Question from Councillor Judy Roberts to Councillor Charlotte Dickson, Cabinet member for leisure.

“Could the Cabinet member please explain the reasons for the delay in publication of the Village and Community Halls Survey, which was due in July 2015?”

In the absence of Councillor Charlotte Dickson the chairman confirmed that a written response would be provided in accordance with Standing Order 12(7) (c).

B.   Question from Councillor Helen Pighills to Councillor Charlotte Dickson, Cabinet member for leisure.

“In the consultation on Abbey Meadows the public were overwhelmingly in support of Scenario A: ‘A place to swim and play’

The consultation leaflet stated ‘We would aim to carry out essential repairs to the swimming pool and changing rooms'.

Furthermore under ‘Improvements we can make', the leaflet listed 'Repair the outdoor swimming pool' with ‘refurbish the changing rooms’ appearing in the ‘Additional improvements we will consider’.

Why then does the recently issued cabinet decision include refurbishment of the changing rooms with no mention of essential repairs to and upgrading of the pool including its ageing pool tank and heating/filtration system?”

In the absence of Councillor Charlotte Dickson the chairman confirmed that a written response would be provided in accordance with Standing Order 12(7) (c).

C.   Question from Councillor Dudley Hoddinott to Councillor Roger Cox, Cabinet member for planning (development management and enforcement)

“Objectors to planning applications often raise the issue of cumulative harm. There may be many applications in one area that together cause significant harm. Or there may be many harms from a single application where each one alone is not reason enough to refuse but cumulatively they might be. How do we consider the impact of cumulative harm and what can the council do to prevent it?”

Councillor Roger Cox responded as follows:

“Any change to the built form will impact the environment whether it is a single dwelling or a large development – the difference would be the scale.  In each case a wide range of issues would be assessed and qualified by specialist officers and measures or conditions would be recommended to help mitigate the potential harm identified.

With large applications an ’environmental impact assessment’ may be required. However, where a proposal does not exceed 150 dwellings and the site is under five hectares it falls beneath the threshold set in schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 and there would be no requirement under it to provide a screening opinion.

When it or the combination of sites exceeds these parameters it is likely that the cumulative impact would have a significant effect then the applicant would apply for a screening opinion to verify whether an environmental impact assessment was required.

Where a development needs an environmental impact assessment we would consider the cumulative impact of a proposal in relation to other committed or emerging developments within the area as required by regulations. For example, the impact on traffic and highways (water supply, waste water treatment and potential flooding) could all be considered and measures identified to mitigate the potential harm caused by the effects of development. If the council was minded to grant permission subject to conditions these would relate only to the specific development of developments under consideration and the measures identified would have to be agreed and met before permission was granted. When doing so it would be vital that conditions were realistic and enforceable. The council would then monitor the development as it progressed and enforce the conditions imposed. This process is amply demonstrated in reports brought to the Planning Committee.”

D.   Question from Councillor Emily Smith to Councillor Mike Murray, Cabinet member for planning policy

“The planning department’s Statement of Community Involvement defines what the public can expect in term of communications and consultations from planning. It's so out of date it lists Dr Evan Harris as our MP to be consulted. Why hasn't this important policy document been kept up to date?”

In the absence of Councillor Mike Murray the chairman confirmed that a written response would be provided in accordance with Standing Order 12(7) (c).

E.   Question from Councillor Debby Hallett to Councillor Mike Murray, Cabinet member for planning policy

“The Cabinet has promised to take care of my interests across the Vale with enterprise, energy and efficiency. I don’t know what they mean by ‘enterprise’. ‘Energy’ isn’t enough if it doesn’t produce a good result. Tonight I’m interested in ‘efficiency’. Could the Cabinet member please report the total costs so far to create the emerging Local Plan? Please include all costs: officers, consultants, travel & food, phone calls, consultation, printing and distribution, and everything else that we have invested so far in producing our emerging Local Plan?”

In the absence of Councillor Mike Murray the chairman confirmed that a written response would be provided in accordance with Standing Order 12(7) (c).