EP6c – Committee Minutes 15th October...PORTFOLIO ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES of a Meeting of the Environment, Heritage and Planning Portfolio Advisory Committee held in the Trelawny

EP6c – Committee Minutes 15th October 2013

117

HS1.02A (Part 2) Issue 1

1

CORNWALL COUNCIL

ENVIRONMENT, HERITAGE AND PLANNING

PORTFOLIO ADVISORY COMMITTEE

MINUTES of a Meeting of the Environment, Heritage and Planning Portfolio Advisory Committee held in the Trelawny Room, Cornwall Council, County Hall, Truro, TR1 3AY on Tuesday 15 October 2013 commencing at 10.00 am. Present:- Councillors: Cole (Chairman)

King (Vice-Chairman)

Bay, Bull, Candy (for Nolan), Chamberlain, Kaczmarek, Long, Lugg, Olivier and Pearce.

Also in attendance:-

Councillors: Blakeley, M Brown, Ellison, Fitter, Hannaford, Hughes, Jenkin, Lewis, Penny and Pugh.

Apologies for absence:-

Councillors: Nolan.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

(Agenda No. 2) EHPAC/19 There were no declarations of interest. SUBMISSION DRAFT LOCAL PLAN

(Agenda No. 3) EHPAC/20 The Local Plan Manager gave a presentation entitled, ‘Local Plan and Housing Targets,’ outlining the context for decisions, the components of change, the overall housing target key points and the 3 main options for the target as being:-

(i) 38,000 supported by the Planning Policy Panel in the last Council; (ii) 42,250 agreed for consultation by Full Council in February 2013; (iii) the officer recommendation for an overall target of 47,500.

He advised Members, that central government expected local councils to set a housing target based on an, ‘objective assessed need’, set out in a Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA). The Local Plan Manager confirmed that an SHMA assessment had recently been completed, based on the demographic trends and recommended the overall housing target of at least 47,500 and he concluded by advising that a lower housing target would be unlikely to be accepted by the Planning Inspectorate based on the evidence from other Councils. A debate ensued and the main points were noted as follows:-

118

Environment, Heritage and Planning Portfolio Advisory Committee 15 October 2013

2

(i) the Council required a Local Plan to ensure some control over development in the Cornwall;

(ii) concern was raised in relation to the impact on the infrastructure of a higher number of new homes;

(iii) the level of employment and wage growth needed to be addressed if more houses were to be built;

(iv) the numbers would be reviewed as more evidence was provided throughout the life of the plan;

(v) concern was raised in relation to the ability of the economy to be able to cope with the current population and this would be further impacted by additional housing;

(vi) it was commented that there was no confidence in the economic assessment;

(vii) concern was expressed with regard to the evidence and calculations within the SHMA including the number of past housing completions, the number of vacant properties, inconsistency in the data on the demographic trends and the flow of migration;

(viii) concern was raised that the DCLG forecast for population growth exaggerated and contrary to other evidence;

(ix) it was commented that council housing should be provided to meet the need for affordable and social housing;

(x) the process for the Local Plan submission had become very complicated;

(xi) the views of the Town and Parish Councils had not been taken into consideration;

(xii) there needed to be a mechanism in place to ensure that housing was affordable for local people;

(xiii) affordable housing needed to be allocated to local people; (xiv) there was an issue with planning permissions being granted and

developers not actually starting work and completing developments;

(xv) concern was raised that the need for housing had to be balanced against the requirement to protect the Cornish countryside;

(xvi) the evidence supplied in relation to the failed submissions by other Councils which had submitted lower overall targets, had provided a compelling case for a higher housing number ;

(xvii) it was commented that the smaller areas of employment space were being provided within some housing developments.

In response to issues raised within the debate, Members were advised that:-

(i) the figure for the housing numbers had to be evidence based and defendable at the examination of the Draft Local Plan;

(ii) vacant properties referred to within the report were either second homes or were empty for a variety of reasons and were unlikely to be new build properties;

(iii) the Homechoice register criteria was to be reviewed and this would impact on the understanding of affordable housing need;

119


3

(xviii) the forecast model takes into account a range of factors including, supply, economy and demographic;

(xix) Homechoice data had not been used to support the officers recommendation for an increased overall housing target;

(iv) the number of households on the Homechoice register that reside outside of the County was very small;

(v) the figure of 42,250 previously agreed at Full Council had been against the officer recommendation;

(vi) based on the submissions from other Councils and the responses from the examiner it had been demonstrated that the housing figures had to be supported by robust evidence;

(vii) the market would dictate the rate that properties were built and sold;

(viii) there were families who required housing that were not on the Homechoice register;

(ix) housing developments provided money for local communities in the form of S106 contributions and in due course the Community Infrastructure Levy if adopted;

(x) improvement of employment opportunities was a role for the wider Council and was not in the remit of planning policy;

(xi) it was anticipated that a report would go to Cabinet for consideration in November, and a further report would go to Full Council for consideration early in the new year.

The meeting adjourned from 11.55am – 12.15pm The Members reviewed the details within Appendix 3 of the report, the Pro Rata distribution figures for 47,500. In response to an issue raised, Members were advised that the Education Authority had not raised concern with regard to the additional housing and the capacity of the schools in the Caradon Area and that the Council had a duty to provide adequate education provision. The Committee then reviewed each of the individual areas in relation to the pro rata distribution and agreed amendments to the distribution following a majority show of hands. The main points raised during the debate were noted as follows:-

(i) the Chairman advised the Committee in relation to letters and

emails he had received in relation to the housing numbers for the West Penwith Community Network Area Residual and the Penzance and Newlyn distribution;

(ii) it was commented that the figure for Penzance and Newlyn was too low as there was a desperate need for affordable housing in Penzance;

(iii) it was commented that with low numbers for the rural areas of Penzance this would impact on the need for housing in Penzance;

(iv) the topography of Helston restricted the number of houses that could be built in the town;

120


4

(v) the two main access roads into Helston would not have the capacity to accommodate the additional traffic;

(vi) concern had previously been expressed that the villages surrounding Helston had not got a sufficient allocation;

(vii) there had already been extensive development in the Camborne, Pool, Illogan and Redruth area;

(viii) concern was raised in relation to the lack of consultation with the Community Network Area with regards to the amendments that the Portfolio Advisory Committee were recommending;

(ix) a pragmatic approach was required for the Truro Area and the numbers needed to be higher due to the number of developments that had received planning permission;

(x) Newquay was a growth area and required additional housing; (xi) St Austell had already seen substantial development without the

development of the infrastructure, therefore there was no capacity to build additional houses;

(xii) concern was expressed that a low figure for St Austell would be unrealistic and would prohibit sustainable development in the future;

(xiii) the number of completions should be shown separately from the commitments;

(xiv) the St Blazey, Fowey and Lostwithiel area had flood zones and these restricted the total number of houses that can be built within the area;

(xv) Tintagel had a need for additional housing. In response to the debate, Members were advised that:-

(i) the amendment of housing figures within an area would impact on the housing figures in other areas;

(ii) the Committee had to be mindful that the distribution for an area was not lower than the number of houses that were already committed;

(iii) the Local Plan was for a 20 year period from 2010 and this had to be taken into consideration when reviewing the numbers.

The meeting adjourned at 13.30pm – 14.15pm

The Local Plan Manager outlined further proposed amendments to the Local Plan set out in the report and responded to questions in relation to:-

(i) the wording of Policy 2 with regard to St Austell; (ii) the figures for Bodmin; (iii) the policies relating to Farming and Agricultural Land; (iv) the capacity at existing waste facilities; (v) the five year land supply; (vi) affordable housing; (vii) Gypsy and Traveller sites; (viii) Community Infrastructure Levy.

121


5

The Local Plan Manager circulated the proposed amendment to Policy 2 Key targets and Spatial Strategy,’ and the replacement of the draft text in Appendix 1 page 9 para 6 a,b & c with the following:-

6 Maintain the special character of Cornwall, recognising all landscapes are important in order to;

(a) Promote and enhance the special qualities that make up

the diverse and locally distinctive landscapes of Cornwall. (b) Identify the value and sensitivity of all landscapes,

understanding what is important to the character to allow them to be protected, enhanced and conserved.

(c) Create resilient landscapes and sensitively accommodate

investment and growth within Cornwall’s unique landscape qualities, ensuring people continue to be drawn to Cornwall to visit and for a thriving healthy population to live and work.

(d) Maintain the natural beauty of the AONB and the

undeveloped coast. The Committee reviewed the policy and raised with regard to the robustness of the Policy Wording. Arising from consideration of the report and the debate, it was proposed by Councillor Olivier, seconded by Councillor Candy that Cabinet amends the pre – submission draft Local Plan to include the increased overall housing figure of 47,500 to the year 2030, on voting the motion was lost. It was then proposed by Councillor Cole, seconded by Councillor Candy, and upon voting, it was

RESOLVED TO RECOMMEND TO CABINET that:- 1. Two options for the overall housing numbers within the pre-submission

draft Local Plan of 47,500 and 42,250 be considered. 2. The text of the Draft Local Plan Submission be approved in response to

issues raised by the consultation subject to:- (i) the amendments as set out in the report. (ii) the following amendments agreed by the Environment, Heritage

and Planning Portfolio Advisory Committee:- (a) Add a reference to employment growth for the St Austell

area in the Strategy (Policy 2). (b) The word ‘maintain’, be removed and replaced by ‘protect’ in

Policy 2, point 6d.

It was further RECOMMENDED that:-

122


6

1. The following amendments be made to the proposed distribution for 47,500 new homes and the details be circulated to all Members for consultation with their Community Network Areas:- (a) Penzance distribution be increased to 2150. (b) Helston distribution be reduced to 900. (c) CPIR distribution be increased to 4500 and the Community

Network area be increased to 800. (d) Newquay distribution be increased 3200. (e) St Austell distribution be reduced to 2000. (f) St Blazey, Fowey and Lostwithiel Community Network Area

distribution be reduced to 800. (g) Camelford Community Network Area distribution be increased

to 1200. (h) Saltash distribution be increased to 1100.

2. Amendments be made to the distribution for 42,250 new homes to reflect the changes agreed by the Portfolio Advisory Committee for the distribution for 47,500 and the details be circulated to all Members for consultation with their Community Network Areas.

3. A report be brought back to the November meeting of the

Environment, Heritage and Planning Portfolio Advisory Committee outlining the consultation responses from the Community Network Areas in relation to the revised distribution figures.

The meeting ended at 15.30 pm. [The agenda and reports relating to the items referred to above are attached to the signed copy of the Minutes].

123

EP6d – Committee Report 15th November 2013

124

Cornwall Council

Report to: Environment Heritage and Planning Portfolio Advisory Committee

Date: 15 November 2013

Title: Revised Pre - Submission Draft Local Plan

Portfolio Holder(s) Edwina Hannaford CC

Divisions Affected All

Relevant Overview And Scrutiny Committee:

Appropriate Overview & Scrutiny Committee(s) For The Report

Key Decision: Y Approval and clearance obtained:

Y

Urgent Decision: N Implementation Date: Normally 10 calendar days after decision for Cabinet

If Key Decision - on Forward Plan?

Y If not on Forward Plan – Procedure 15 or 16 used?

Na

Author: Steve Havers Role: Strategic Policy Manager

Contact: Telephone/email 01872 224404 [email protected]

Recommendation:

The Environment, Heritage and Planning Portfolio Advisory Committee recommends that Cabinet considers the overall target and distribution of housing numbers for the Local Plan as set out in Appendix 1 and 2 (47,500 and 42,250 respectively) when formulating its recommendation to Full Council.

1. Executive Summary: The Local Plan provides the local policies to guide planning decisions. Until it is adopted the main planning policy for Cornwall is the National Planning

125

Cornwall Council Policy Framework and its presumption in favour of sustainable development. The previous meeting of this PAC agreed a number of changes to policy and the supporting text of the plan. The PAC also agreed to propose two alternatives for Cabinet and Council to consider and decide on the overall target and distribution of the housing numbers for the Local Plan. Since the last PAC all Members have had the opportunity to comment on the proposed distribution of the housing numbers for each of the PAC’s proposed options for overall target. These have been devised on a broadly pro-rata basis reflecting a strategy that all places have a housing need for them to be sustainable communities. Some adjustment has been made that reflects past rates of development and planning permissions and local aspirations for higher growth. The proposed distributions for the two options are set out in Appendix 1 and 2 to this report. The purpose of this report is to confirm the distribution of growth as set out in these appendices in the context of comments expressed by the wider membership of the Council. 2. Background and Corporate Objectives: The Cornwall Local Plan will set out the statutory planning policies against which planning applications will be judged. Until it is adopted the National Planning Policy Framework remains the dominant policy framework for planning decisions. The previous meeting of this PAC agreed a range of amendments to the policies and supporting text of the Draft Local Plan for consideration by Cabinet. It also agreed that the decision on the housing numbers should be made by Council and proposed two options for this decision. Cabinet will consider in the first instance and make its own recommendation. Since the previous meeting all members have been consulted on a draft distribution for housing numbers for each of these overall targets. These are appended to this report; Appendix 1 and 2. Feedback from this consultation will be reported verbally to this meeting. It should be noted that PAC’s decision to amend the distribution relating to the figure of 42,250 will be a significant change and will mean that the Council will have to commit time and resources to re-consulting on the document again before the Council can approve it for submission to the Secretary of State. It would only be possible to submit the Local Plan directly to the Secretary of State (without further consultation) if no significant changes were made to the pre-submission (March 2013) version of the document.

126

Cornwall Council 3. Decision and Supporting Information (Including Options): The decision is to agree the distribution of the housing numbers by Community Network Area and to the main towns and to propose that the Council decides between the two options, to be included in the draft Local Plan as the basis for a further period of public consultation and the intention to submit to the Secretary of State. The recommendation of the report proposes that the Council makes a final decision on the housing target and the distribution of the housing numbers of the Local Plan from these two options, following consideration by and the recommendation of the Cabinet. The basis for the distribution agreed at the previous PAC was on a broadly pro-rata basis recognising that all places have a housing need but adjusting these to reflect;

• Past rates of building and commitments; • Restricted capacity for growth e.g. AONB; and • Local aspirations for higher levels of growth.

There are a range of alternative approaches that can be considered for the distribution. These include focusing upon particular towns and /or areas of highest housing need. The distribution set out here again can be assessed against these issues but it is not that inconsistent with the proposed approaches set out in the appendices. It is important for the approach to be justified by a clear rationale when it is tested at examination. 4. Contributions to Corporate Priorities: The Plan provides the land use framework to a range of corporate priorities. These include the economic growth and the delivery of affordable housing but also impact upon areas of health and the environment. 5. Financial Implications and Budget: The Local Plan preparation is funded from normal operational budgets. However, delays for any reason will incur additional burden of staff costs to proceed. Delays as part of the submission and examination stage will incur costs from the Planning Inspectorate. This would be met through the Service’s budget but will impede delivery of other non-statutory functions. In addition, planning appeal decisions could incur costs if decisions are in clear conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework during any period of delay towards the adoption of the Local Plan.

127

Cornwall Council Planning by appeal, inquiries and costs. Without an adopted local plan the Council remains vulnerable to planning being taken through the appeal process . This process does incur costs in the response to appeals and also where we are unable to substantiate a case can include added financial costs imposed by an inspector. It is however difficult to provide a definitive estimate of these costs. 6. Other Resourcing Implications: Property - for example where the decision will result in significant changes to the Council’s property portfolio. If these changes are already identified in the Corporate Asset Management Plan, Area Asset Management Plan, or relevant Service Asset Management Plan these should be referenced. If they are significant and not already identified the Head of Property should be consulted. HR/Staffing – None Information Services – None Procurement and Contracts – None 7. Legal Implications: It is necessary for the Cabinet/Council to make a decision based on evidence that supports the decision and that can be supported at the Examination in Public. Appendix 3 sets out the issues that are impeding progress on other Local Plans and Members need to be aware of these issues when reaching a decision. 8. Equality Impact Assessment: • The Local Plan policies are intended to be implemented for the public

good. • The Plan in its current state will not need meet the housing need and especially in delivering affordable housing and this has been highlighted on a number of occasions and consistently raised in Officer recommendations.

• The proposed recommendation to increase the housing target will meet demographic projections but not address the backlog of affordable housing.

9. Significant risks: The significant risk is that the Plan is found unsound at the Examination leaving the Council with no local policy framework and the National Planning Policy Framework as the primary policy for planning decisions. Risk of planning by appeal and costs awarded against the Council.

128

Cornwall Council Incur unnecessary costs as a result of the way revisions would be made. 10. Consultation including Overview and Scrutiny Committee and Local Member Representation: Previous iterations subject to public consultation and governance structures of the previous administration including Cabinet and Council. This report presents advice previously considered by PAC & informal PAC. Subject to Council resolution to make significant amendments to the Plan a further period of consultation will be carried out to meet statutory requirements of Plan making. 10.1 Overview and Scrutiny Consultation/Comments: n/a 10.2 Local Division Member Comments: n/a Supporting Information Appendices: Appendix 1 - Proposed distribution based upon 47,500 dwellings Appendix 2 - Proposed distribution based upon 42,250 dwellings

Appendix 3 - Issues that are impeding progress on other Local Plans Background Papers: PAC Agenda papers 15 October 2013. Approval and Clearance of Report All Reports:

Final Report Sign Offs This report has been cleared by OR not significant/ not required

Date

Finance Steve England 01/11/13

129

Cornwall Council

Required for all reports

Legal (if significant/required)

Elizabeth Dunstan 05/11/13

Equality Impact Assessment (if significant/required)

Human Resources (if significant/required)

Property (if significant/required)

Procurement (if significant/required)

Information Services (if significant/required)

Draft Reports Process Checklist: Guidance: The following section is for use during the drafting of the report. Completion is the responsibility of the report author and it will be removed before publication. To be completed by report authors prior to submission: For Cabinet/Individual Decision reports the following checklist should be completed

Process Checklist Completed

Portfolio Holder/Member Champion briefed Yes

Corporate Director briefed Yes

Head of Service Sign off (draft) Yes

Data Protection Issues Considered Yes

If exempt information, public (part 1) report also drafted. (Cabinet/O&S)

Yes

If not on Forward Plan, Overview and Scrutiny offered the opportunity to consider the report

Yes

130

EP6e – Committee Report 14th January 2014

131

Cornwall Council Agenda No. Not Confidential Decision Sheet From: Cabinet Date: 27 November 2013 Title: REVISED PRE-SUBMISSION DRAFT LOCAL

PLAN Portfolio Holder: Edwina Hannaford CC – Environment,

Heritage and Planning Divisions Affected: All Relevant Scrutiny Committee: Scrutiny Management Committee Key Decision: Yes Checklist Compliant: Yes Urgent Decision: No Implementation Date: 10 December

2013

DECISION: Recommendations to Council:

1. That the draft Cornwall Local Plan be amended and agreed in accordance with either paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) below:-

(a) The overall housing number be agreed at 47,500 with the

associated distribution of such housing being as set out in Appendix 1 to the report to Cabinet dated 27 November 2013.

(b) The overall housing number be agreed at 42,250 with the

associated distribution of such housing being as set out in Appendix 2 to the report to Cabinet dated 27 November 2013.

2. That the draft Cornwall Local Plan, as revised in accordance with the

agreed option under resolution 1 above and as further revised as set out in section 2 and Appendices 3 and 4 of the report to Cabinet dated 27 November 2013, be approved for public consultation.

Reason for the Decision:

132

The Cornwall Local Plan (“the Plan”) provided the local policies to guide planning decisions. Until it was adopted, the main planning policy for Cornwall was the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and its presumption in favour of sustainable development. The previous Council had agreed a draft Plan for public consultation as the formal stage before submission to the Secretary of State for Examination by an independent Inspector. Since then, a significant body of evidence had showed that, elsewhere, Local Plans that did not include housing numbers based closely on national guidance were failing before or at Examination. In light of the serious risk of delay to the adoption of the Plan, the Environment, Heritage and Planning (EH&P) PAC considered that full Council should make an informed decision on the overall housing number and its distribution. The recommendation set out in this report proposed that the Council amends the draft Plan, and agrees the overall housing numbers and the associated housing distribution from one of two options, either a higher housing figure of 45,700 or a lower figure of 42,250, the proposed distribution of housing accompanying the higher and lower figures being appended to the report (Appendices 1 & 2). Officers had strongly advised that the overall housing number should reflect national demographic projections so as to be robust at Examination; this would be the higher option, i.e. 47,500. It was further advised that any amendment to the draft Plan published by the last Council should have a further period of consultation prior to approval by the Council for submission to the Secretary of State. The date for implementation was that relating to the decision of Cabinet following the period of call-in, although it should be noted that the final decision was being made by full Council. Alternative options considered: None other than contained within the report. Conflicts of interest declared: None. Dispensations granted in respect of a conflict of interest: N/A

133

1. Executive Summary: The Cornwall Local Plan (“the Plan”) provides the local policies to guide planning decisions. Until it is adopted, the main planning policy for Cornwall is the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and its presumption in favour of sustainable development. The previous Council agreed a draft Plan for public consultation as the formal stage before submission to the Secretary of State for Examination by an independent Inspector. Since then, a significant body of evidence shows that elsewhere, Local Plans that do not include housing numbers based closely on national guidance are failing before or at Examination. In light of the serious risk of delay to the adoption of the Plan, the Environment, Heritage and Planning (EH&P) PAC believe that full Council should make an informed decision on the overall housing number and its distribution. Officers strongly advise that the overall housing number should reflect national demographic projections to be robust at Examination; this would be the higher option. It is further advised that any amendment to the draft Plan published by the last Council should have a further period of consultation prior to approval by the Council for submission to the Secretary of State. The date for implementation is that relating to the decision of Cabinet following period of call-in, although it should be noted that the final decision is being made by full Council 2. Background and Corporate Objectives: The Cornwall Local Plan will set out the statutory planning policies against which planning applications will be judged. Until it is adopted, the National Planning Policy Framework remains the dominant policy framework for planning decisions. The previous Council carried out a number of public consultations on its proposed draft Plan. The last consultation earlier in 2013 was a formal stage before submitting it to the Secretary of State from where it would go on to Examination. Comments received were analysed and the main issues reported to PAC. Representations raised a number of substantive concerns, particularly the scale and distribution of the Plan’s provision for housing, as well as targets for affordable housing and jobs. Most issues are addressed in the proposed amendments to the Plan. Proposed responses to the representations have been agreed by the EH&P PAC (15 Oct 2013). The main topic of concern, however, is the housing numbers. Government guidance, in the form of the National Planning Policy Framework;

134

however, requires housing targets to be set based on ‘objectively assessed needs’ using a Strategic Housing Market Assessment “.. taking account of migration and demographic change”. Typically, where Plans elsewhere have been submitted with a target lower than their demographic projection or Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS was not adopted in the South West) target, they have been rejected by the Planning Inspectorate before the Examination or have failed. In the small number of cases where this has not happened, usually where land is identified for housing (unlike Cornwall’s), the Inspector has stipulated a review of the Plan within 12 months to increase housing supply. A summary assessment of the progress of other Local Plans around the Country is set out below to provide Cabinet with a sense of how these plans are assessed and the issues raised. Review of Submitted Plans since publication of the National Planning

Policy Framework (NPPF)

Found Sound

with Regional

Spatial

Strategy (RSS)

still in place –

10 of these

contained

housing target

that was the

same as or

exceeded RS

A further 10 with

a housing target

less than the

RSS require an

early review to

increase housing

target

Found Sound

with

requirement for

early review

Milton Keynes and

Suffolk Coastal –

requirement for

early review as

had no up to date

SHMA.

Dacorum –

requirement for

early review as

delivery

constrained by

Green Belt and

AONB.

Found unsound

or recommended

to withdraw

Relating to housing

targets below

objectively

assessed need

Currently

submitted for

Examination –

suspended or

requirement for

further work on

housing targets

Being below

objectively

assessed need or

no SHMA in place

21 3 7 21

A Plan found unsound cannot be adopted by the Council. Submission of a weak Plan and/or failure at the Examination will significantly delay the adoption of the Plan, due to the risk of the Inspectorate suspending the Examination to require further work and consideration of 2 or more years. This will incur both costs and a delay in time before a plan is adopted. The Council is required to submit a Plan that it believes to be sound and that has been consulted upon. Amendment of the Plan at this time should ensure a more sound Plan is submitted, but would require further consultation as such changes would be considered a significant amendment prior to submission.

135

Officers believe that a target based on the housing need arising from the basic demographic projections in our recent Strategic Housing Market Assessment, of 47,500 is the lowest that could be robustly defended at the Examination. It does not include any allowance for meeting the backlog in affordable housing or meeting the needs that might be required by higher aspirations for economic growth; but relates to the projections stemming from demographic change over the next 17 years. The level of growth this sets is still significantly lower than past proposals and is broadly equivalent to the current rate of house building across Cornwall, i.e. around 2,300 per year. The proposed distribution of the housing numbers is based on a strategy that all places have some housing need to remain sustainable. The starting point of the distribution is, therefore, on a pro-rata basis but adjusted to take account of past high or low levels of development, environmental constraints such as the AONB and where there is a local aspiration for growth. The respective distributions for the two options of overall housing numbers are set out in Appendices 1 and 2 however at the PAC meetings to discuss distribution the decision was made to seek further views from the Cornwall Gateway members on how they would wish to see the distribution of the two figures for their area distributed within the network area. This information is awaited . Other proposed amendments to the Plan are highlighted in Appendix 3 and 4, in summary they are:- a. Add Penzance as a strategic town referenced in the Strategy and emphasise the economic role of St Austell (Policy 2); b. Provide a landscape strategy statement (Policy 2) to provide a fuller framework for the special character of all of Cornwall’s landscape, including AGLVs and AGHVs. c. Amend the supporting text to better reflect how the Plan responds to cross boundary issues and economic growth in South East Cornwall in particular. d. Amend the text and policy relating to the economy (Policy 2) to be more closely aligned with the Economic Strategy of the Council and the Local Enterprise Partnership, including the removal of reference to job target. e. remove reference to development of a separate Development Plan Document on waste. The draft Plan proposes to explore any shortfall in capacity for Local Authority Collected Waste through a separate Waste Development Plan Document. Recent information indicates this is no longer necessary. f. Provide clarity on a Cornwall-wide approach to 5 year land supply with local area targets once established through policy. g. Delete policy requirements on public sector land for affordable housing as it is not substantiated on grounds of viability.

136

h. Edit the policy framework for Community Network Areas for consistency, focusing on the areas’ local objectives. i. Amend Gypsy, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople Policy 12 to reflect recently updated assessments. It is also proposed that the Plan gives clear reference and intent to prepare additional Development Plan documents (with full weight of legislation) covering; • site and land allocations; • minerals safeguarding, and • travelling communities and Supplementary Planning Guidance on; • design; • building standards; • affordable housing; • assessing impact of renewable energy schemes; • Landscape Impact Assessment incorporating methodologies, landscape character, AGLVs and AGHVs. 3. Decision and Supporting Information (Including Options): The decision is to recommend to the Council how the Plan could proceed. There are a range of options for Members to consider. These are as follows; Option A: Full Council debate and agrees a housing figure (47,500 or 42,250) and associated distribution The recommendation set out in this report proposes the Council amends the draft Plan, and agrees the overall housing numbers and the associated housing distribution from one of two options either a higher housing figure of 45,700 or a lower figure of 42,250. The proposed distribution of housing to accompanying the higher and lower figures are appended to this report (appendices 1 & 2). Under this option a further period of consultation would be required. Option B: Cabinet recommends a single housing figure to full Council The main alternative would be to propose a single housing number for the draft Plan. There are clearly a range of views contained within the Council reflected in the two options.

137

Option C: Cabinet recommends submitting the pre-submission version of the Local Plan to the Secretary of State c. Another alternative option is for the current draft Cornwall Local Plan to be submitted, essentially unaltered, from the consultation version, retaining the previous distribution and level of housing growth at 42,250. This would allow only minor changes to be made and hence would not require additional consultation. While the justification for the lower housing target is vulnerable against the tests at an Examination and significant risk of delay or failure this would remain the same for the figure of 42250 included above. Option D: Cabinet recommends submitting the consultation version of the Plan (42,250) with an amended housing distribution Another option would include retaining the current proposed level of growth, but consulting upon other significant changes such as a different distribution of growth across Cornwall .This would require further consultation now to address the significant changes and would be at the same risk as option b, above. This is the option reflected in the alternative distribution suggested by the PAC for the figure of 42250. Option E: Cabinet recommends other housing figures to those proposed in options a – d above The Council could endorse a lower or higher figure. Two options for lower numbers have been considered previously by the EH&P PAC and Council. Proceeding with a lower target than 42250 would require further consultation and (d) above. The need to undertake further consultation on significant changes, and the likelihood of acceptance at examination, will have a bearing on the timetable for plan preparation. Possible scenarios for the Plan’s progression to adoption are shown in appendix 6. 4. Contributions to Corporate Priorities: The Plan provides the land use framework to a range of corporate priorities. These include the economic growth and the delivery of affordable housing, but also impact upon areas of health and the environment. 5. Financial Implications and Budget: The preparation of the Plan is funded from within existing service budgets. However, delays for any reason will incur additional burden on staff costs to proceed. Delays as part of the submission and Examination stage will incur additional costs from the Planning Inspectorate process. This would have to be met through the existing Service budget which will impede the delivery of other non-statutory functions. In addition, planning appeal decisions could incur costs if decisions are in clear conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework during any period of delay towards the adoption of the Plan.

138

Planning by appeal, inquiries and costs - Without an adopted Local Plan the Council remains vulnerable to planning being taken through the appeal process. This process will lead to the Council incurring additional costs in having to respond to appeals, and also where we are unable to substantiate a case, the Council may be liable for additional costs imposed as an outcome of the appeal by an Inspector. It is, however, not possible to provide a definitive estimate of these costs. 6. Other Resourcing Implications: Property - planning policy for publicly owned land would have implications for Council land. HR/Staffing – None Information Services – None Procurement and Contracts – None 7. Legal Implications: On submission to the Inspectorate, the Plan should be capable of being robustly defended at Examination to reduce the risk of delay to the implementation of the plan. 8. Equality Impact Assessment: • The Local Plan policies are intended to be implemented for the public good. • The Plan in its current state will not meet the housing need, and especially delivering affordable housing, and this has been highlighted on a number of occasions and consistently raised in officer recommendations. • The officer recommendation to increase the housing target will meet demographic projections but not address the backlog of affordable housing.

• Key social impacts of the local Plan. An assessment of strategic policies (in respect of social impacts) is available in the respective findings of the accompanying Sustainability Appraisal alongside environmental and economic impacts. The Sustainability Appraisal has assisted development of the Local Plan.

9. Significant risks: The significant risk is that the Plan is found unsound at the Examination, leaving the Council with no local policy framework and the National Planning Policy Framework as the primary policy for planning decisions. Risk of planning by appeal and costs awarded against the Council.

139

Incur unnecessary costs as a result of the way revisions would be made. 10. Consultation including Overview and Scrutiny Committee and Local Member Representation: Local Member Representation: Previous iterations of the Local Plan have been subject to public consultation and governance structures of the previous administration including Cabinet and Council. This report presents advice previously considered by the E H & P PAC at formal and informal meetings. At its meeting on 15th October 2013 the EH & P PAC resolved to recommend to Cabinet that 2 options for overall level of housing numbers be considered (47,500 & 42,250) and that revisions to the housing distribution for each overall housing figure be circulated to all Members for consultation within Community Network Areas. The report to EH & P PAC is appended (appendix 5). The distribution of housing was considered by EH & P PAC on 15th November. Subject to Council resolution to make significant amendments to the Plan, a further period of consultation will be carried out to meet statutory requirements of Plan making. 10.1 Scrutiny Consultation/Comments: N/A 10.2 Local Division Member Comments: N/A The Local Plan contains draft planning policy for the whole of Cornwall. Supporting Information Appendices: Appendix 1: Proposed distribution of option for overall housing number of 47,500 Appendix 2: Proposed distribution of option for overall housing number of 42,250 Appendix 3: Proposed draft Local Plan

Appendix 4: Environment, Heritage and Planning Portfolio Advisory

Committee, Report of 15th October 2013, Agenda item 3:

Submission Local Plan [AVAILABLE ONLINE]

https://democracy.cornwall.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=933&MId=5261&Ver=4

140

Appendix 5: Cornwall Local Plan: projected timescale for plan preparation Background Papers: None Approval and Clearance of Report All Reports:

Final Report Sign Offs This report has been cleared by OR not significant/ not required

Date

Finance Required for all reports

Andy Brown 15/11/13

Legal (if significant/required)

Elizabeth Dunstan

18/11/13

Equality Impact Assessment (if significant/required)

Human Resources (if significant/required)

Property (if significant/required)

Procurement (if significant/required)

Information Services (if significant/required)

Cabinet/Individual Decision Reports:

Final Report Sign Offs This report has been cleared by

Date

Head of service Phil Mason

Corporate Director Paul Masters

141

EP6f – Committee Minutes 14th January 2014

142

1

CORNWALL COUNCIL

CORNWALL COUNCIL

MINUTES of a Meeting of the Cornwall Council held in the Council Chamber, Cornwall Council, County Hall, Truro, TR1 3AY on Tuesday 14 January 2014 commencing at 10.30 am. Present:- Councillors: Wood (Chairman)

Kerridge (Vice-Chairman)

Andrewes, Atherton, Austin, Batters, Bay, Biscoe, Blakeley, Geoff Brown, Glenton Brown, M Brown, Bull, Bunney, Burden, Buscombe, Callan, Candy, Chamberlain, Chopak, Cole, Coombe, Curnow, Deeble, Dolley, Duffin, Dwelly, Eathorne-Gibbons, Eddowes, Egerton, Elliott, Ellis, Ellison, Evans, Farrington, Ferguson, Fitter, Folkes, Fonk, Frank, French, George, German, Greenslade, Hall, Hannaford, Harding, Harris, Harvey, Hatton, Hawken, Haycock, Heyward, Hicks, Hobbs, Holley, Holmes, Hughes, James, Jenkin, Jewell, Kaczmarek, Keeling, J Kenny, Keogh, King, Lambshead, Lewis, Long, Lugg, Luke, Maddern, S Mann, P Martin, May, McKenna, McWilliam, A Mitchell, P Mitchell, Nicholas, Nolan, Olivier, Parsons, Pascoe, Paynter, Pearce, Pearn, Penhaligon, Penny, Pollard, Pugh, Rich, Rix, P Rogerson, S Rogerson, Rotchell, Jeremy Rowe, Sanger, Saunby, Scrafton, Shuttlewood, Sleeman, Stoneman, Taylor, I Thomas, A Toms, H Toms, Trubody, Wallis, Watson, Webber, White and Wilkins.

Apologies for absence:-

Councillors: Dyer, Flashman, Kirk, S Knightley, R Mann, Moyle, Rule and J Thomas.

PRAYERS (Agenda No. 1) CC/121 Reverend Goldsmith led the Council in prayers. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST (Agenda No. 3) CC/122 In accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct Councillor Burden declared a disclosebale pecuniary interest in Agenda item 9.1 and left the room for the duration of this agenda item. CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS (Agenda No. 4) CC/123 The Chairman stated that he had enjoyed a Christmas surrounded by family and all went very well. For the three weeks leading

143

Cornwall Council 14 January 2014

2

up to Christmas he endeavoured and largely succeeded in visiting every one stop shop, fire station, library and council office in the Duchy and was warmly greeted everywhere he went. The Chairman reflected that the Council was very fortunate in having such a hard working loyal workforce who were justly proud of their work. In summary, the Chairman stated that he had visited the Truro Prime stock show; the Truro Post Office sorting office with the Vice Chairman to learn how modern technology was making deliveries even faster; many carol services; and had had an enjoyable time at the Cornwall Youth Brass Band Gala Concert. He further announced that he also had the pleasure of congratulating those who received New Year Honours in recognition of their achievements and service as follows: Jill Carr, awarded an MBE for her work as Human Resources Director at Pendennis Shipyard, Falmouth, recognised for her drive to encourage apprenticeships; Bob Bulgin, the Chairman of the RNLI’s Port Isaac fundraising branch, was honoured with a British Empire Medal. Since becoming Chairman of the branch seven years ago, he helped to raise £180,000 for the charity despite the North Cornwall village only having a resident population of just over 700; Ken Radford, from St Austell was also awarded an M.B.E in recognition of his services to people with learning disabilities for his work with the People and Gardens project at the Eden Project; Shona Williams was awarded a Royal Victorian Medal as Assistant Dresser to The Duchess of Cornwall; and finally Royal Victorian Orders were also awarded to Robin Conibear for his services as Poundbury Development Manager, and Gemma Kaza, Inventory Controller, for Household of The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall. The Chairman then reminded Members that Cornwall Wildlife Trust representatives were in the Long Gallery and that they could visit the stand during lunch. He finally praised and thanked all the work by staff and other agencies over Christmas and the New Year in helping during the emergency weather conditions and the subsequent recovery activities. LEADER'S ANNOUNCEMENTS (Agenda No. 5) CC/124 The Leader further endorsed the Chairman’s praise for the superb work of people working over Christmas in response to the tough weather conditions. He then stated that the Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources and the new Chief Executive Andrew Kerr had accompanied him to London to visit local government minister Brandon Lewis (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government). During discussions it was established that the Council Tax referendum threshold was yet to be determined, which the Council needed to draw up a clear picture of the impact on Council services. Due to the delay Full

144


3

Council had to be moved to 25 February 2014 as a result. The Leader expressed frustration that without early clarity from central government the Council was not able to create budget proposals. The Leader finally informed Members that they were all data controllers and that knowledge regarding the Data Protection Act was important for all. The Information Management team was in the Long Gallery to advise Members regarding their responsibilities and he encouraged them to visit the stand during lunch. MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 26 NOVEMBER 2013 (Agenda No. 6) CC/125 It was moved by Councillor Wood, seconded by Councillor Kerridge and RESOLVED that the minutes of the Cornwall Council meeting held on 26 November 2013 were correctly recorded and that they be signed by the Chairman. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC (Agenda No. 7) CC/126 The following questions were received by members of the public. CORNWALL COUNCIL PETITIONS CC/127 Mr Kearton of Par, his question being read out by the Chairman, requested to know whether Cornwall Council was dealing with all of its current online petitions in accordance with the rules and protocols set out on its website. In reply, Councillor Folkes explained that the Council’s Petitions Scheme had two thresholds that triggered referral of petitions to Members for debate. The first was a threshold of 1000 signatures where the petition called for a senior officer to be called to account. Where such a petition was presented and the 1000 signature threshold was reached it would be referred to the Scrutiny Management Committee for debate. The other threshold was 5000 signatures where the petition related to a Cornwall wide matter. Where such a petition was presented and the 5000 signature threshold was reached it would be referred to Full Council for debate. In all other cases the Council was able to determine how it would respond to a petition. The Petitions Scheme related to both written and online petitions but Mr Kearton’s question related specifically to online petitions of which there were currently four, none of which related to an officer being called to account.

145


4

One of the current online petitions had been established by Mr Kearton and although it raised an interesting Cornwall wide issue about the vaccination of badgers it currently had less than 2000 signatures and so did not yet trigger a Full Council debate. If it reached 5000 signatures before it closed on 1 July it would be referred to Council. In the meantime a meeting had been offered to Mr Kearton with the relevant Cabinet Member and Head of Service for a preliminary discussion pending the outcome of the petition. None of the other current online petitions related to a Cornwall wide matter and so they would not trigger a referral to Full Council in any event. All three petitions currently had less than 100 signatures and so it was appropriate to allow those petitions to conclude before determining how they would be addressed. All of the online petitions that were currently live were being dealt with properly and he was assured by the Monitoring Officer that through his staff he was ensuring that the Council’s Petitions Scheme was properly understood and applied in all cases. He finally stated that the simple answer to the question was therefore ‘Yes’. TRANSPORT AND WASTE PORTFOLIO ADVISORY COMMITTEE CC/128 Ms Dent of Wadebridge quoted an extract from Philippe Grandjean, ‘ONLY. ONE. CHANCE. 2013 as follows: ‘Environmental pollution impairs foetal neurodevelopment. Adult dementias increase. Almost one in six children displays neurodevelopmental disease. Suspected cause, thousands of environmental toxins released without testing.’ She therefore questioned why, when incineration added to these untested toxins pervading the air, Cornwall scorned The EUNOMIA Report recommendations. In response, Councillor Biscoe explained that the Council did not “scorn” the report prepared by Eunomia Research & Consulting on behalf of the Cornwall Waste Forum and, indeed, the Council recognised their professional capabilities. The Council, through its former Cabinet Waste Development Advisory Panel, considered the report in January of last year and decided that no further work should be undertaken on alternative waste management proposals and the reasons for this were well known and publicly documented. The Council had been aware of public concerns over health issues and gave careful consideration to these issues during the formulation of its strategy for the management of municipal waste in Cornwall. The Cornwall Energy Recovery Centre was designed to screen out air pollutants and was required to operate in accordance with a Pollution

146


5

Prevention and Control Permit issued by the Environment Agency which had responsibility for regulating compliance with the Permit, including emissions. In her supplementary question Ms Dent requested to know when Cornwall Council would ensure adequate recycling and anaerobic digestion. In response, Councillor Biscoe stated that the Council was supportive of recycling and renewable energy. It encouraged the commercial sector to undertake anaerobic digestion, but currently the Cornwall Waste Strategy did not support it as a waste disposal management policy. CORNWALL LOCAL PLAN CC/129 Mr Cooper of Callington requested to know what source of information was used to determine the figure for required housing that was in the Cornwall Local Plan and whether the information was available for public scrutiny and if so where. In response, Councillor Hannaford explained that ultimately the housing target for the Local Plan was a decision for Members of the Council but would be tested at an independent examination. The Strategic Housing Market Needs Assessment (SHMNA) was the key piece of evidence for this and had been debated at length by the Environment Heritage and Planning Portfolio Advisory Committee (PAC) and Cabinet. Cornwall’s SHMNA was available on the Council’s Local Plan web pages. National guidance placed much importance on a SHMNA and provided clear guidance on how to prepare a SHMNA for Local Plans and, unless there was a robust alternative, the set of population projections produced by the Office of National Statistics was a key component as they took a sophisticated appraisal of each age group into the future. These were regularly updated and were available on the ONS website. There was overwhelming evidence from Local Plans elsewhere that the Planning Inspectorate found these ONS projections the most compelling evidence for assessing housing need at Examination. WASTE CC/130 Mr Rickard of Dennis, his question being read out by the Chairman, requested to know why the Portfolio Holder for Transport and Waste presented the report by employee Nigel Blackler again, when being quite aware of its inaccuracies and misleading statements. In reply, Councillor Biscoe surmised that Mr Rickard's question related to an unspecified Report which the Council assumed was in the agenda papers for the Council meeting, and was the appendixed committee agenda paper dated 21st November 2013. The only report which was pertinent to the business of the Council was the report of the

147


6

proceedings of the Transport and Waste Portfolio Advisory Committee (PAC). The background report was for information purposes, and was discussed extensively by the PAC at its meeting. He explained that it was appended to the Council papers to enable Members to clearly understand what was considered by the Committee. The recommendations to Full Council derived from the meeting's consideration of the Motion. There was nothing in the Report before Full Council at the current meeting from the PAC which he had any difficultly with - it was an accurate précis of the full discussion and the recommendation was accurately phrased. Given the Council's contractual commitments there was nothing in the background paper, or in the report of the PAC meeting with which he took issue. COUNCILLOR KING'S MOTION CC/131 Mr Turner of Perranporth stated that in 2012 public disquiet over the failure to respect the will of Full Council with regard to the proposed “Strategic Partnership for Support Services" triggered another debate and a change of policy. Councillor King’s motion of September 3rd 2013 addressed equally controversial issues, he therefore requested to know whether the Council considered it wise to encourage a full and public debate of that motion at the current Council meeting. In response, Councillor Biscoe explained that the Chairman of Council, with advice from officials, determined that the King Motion should be referred to the Transport and Waste Portfolio Advisory Committee. This led to a process which, in an informal session, enabled the St Dennis Waste Forum to make an extended presentation to the Committee. The committee later debated the question in full public session and had made a recommendation to Full Council. Members of Council had the opportunity to debate that, or any, recommendation to Council if they chose to do so. In his supplementary question, Mr Turner requested to know whether the Cabinet Member for Transport and Waste agreed that the ‘tail was wagging the dog’. In response, Councillor Biscoe refuted the analogy and explained that the Council had made a decision regarding the Cornwall Waste Strategy and a binding contract had been entered in to. QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS (Agenda No. 8) CC/132 The following questions were received from Members.

148


7

COUNCIL OWNED TOILET FACILITIES CC/133 Councillor H Toms requested to know, following the well documented issues of the Prince of Wales pier in Falmouth, whether the Cabinet Member for Environment, Heritage and Planning could personally reassure her that all charging gates put into Council owned toilet facilities would be properly accessible to people in wheelchairs and any that were not would be removed and replaced as a matter of urgency. In response, Councillor Hannaford explained that the charging installation at Prince of Wales Pier in Falmouth met the minimum width standards under building regulations in relation to access for wheelchair users within an existing building. However, working within the confines of the listed building, the gates had reduced the overall width of the entrance and the Council was made aware that some users of the facilities did not have the same access as they did before. To address this, and anticipating the Town Councils intention to remove charging, the Council arranged for the early removal of the paddle gates. Cornwall Council’s Environment Service was in the process of reviewing all facilities where charging had been introduced to ensure compliance. Charging for some facilities ensured that more public toilets could be kept open set against the backdrop of reducing budget settlements from central government. NEWQUAY AIRPORT CC/134 Councillor Egerton stated that in May 2013, Flybe announced that it was ceasing all flights from Newquay to Gatwick with effect from April 2014. On 2 December, the Council announced that Flybe would be continuing with flights through the summer of 2014. The Newquay Voice ran an article saying, "Sources have told the Voice the charge levied on the airline for each passenger arriving at Newquay Airport will be dramatically reduced." On 4 December, he asked the Portfolio Holder for Partnerships to provide details of the deal that had been done to secure the continued service, information which had now been received, however it seemed that after a month of thinking about it, the Legal Department had been unable to decide whether or not this information should be released. He therefore requested to know whether the Portfolio Holder thought that the impact of this deal on Cornwall Council's budget should be kept secret and, if so, why. In response, Councillor Paynter stated that he was pleased to confirm that Councillor Egerton received a response from the Council’s Legal Service last week setting out the reasons why the details of the arrangements between Cornwall Airport Limited and Flybe should not be publicly disclosed. The publication of this information would prejudice the commercial interests of Cornwall Council and its airport company, risking harm to the airport’s financial viability. In addition it would risk harming the economic interests of Cornwall and also potentially result in a risk of

149


8

litigation from the airline for a breach of confidence. The information to which Councillor Egerton referred was properly exempt from publication under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The overall budgetary performance for the airport was reported through the Council’s budget monitoring and the company’s publication of annual accounts. However, in common with the rest of the aviation industry and given the competitive nature of that market the commercial details with airlines were necessarily confidential. The level of the Council’s financial support for the airport had been considered and approved by the Full Council through its work on the 2014/15 budget and this remained unchanged. In his supplementary question, Councillor Egerton requested to know whether Councillor Paynter felt comfortable that the Isles of Scilly Sky Bus was charged more than Flybe to land at Newquay airport. In response, Councillor Paynter stated that this was the subject of a commercial agreement which necessarily had to remain confidential and he was confident that the situation was acceptable and in the best interests of the airport. HOMECHOICE ALLOCATION CC/135 Councillor Burden stated that there had been a number of instances where under the Homechoice allocation process, the Council was not addressing the needs of the Cornish population. He therefore requested to know what assurance the Cabinet Member for Homes and Communities could provide that the Homechoice system would be reviewed to address the anomaly. In response, Councillor Geoff Brown advised that the Localism Act 2012 had offered Local Housing Authorities more freedoms and flexibilities to develop their Allocations Schemes. The Council had recently started to review the current Allocations Scheme in light of these freedoms and flexibilities, and discussions had been taking place with the Homes and Communities Portfolio Advisory Committee on the policy direction. It was intended to present a scoping document, based on feedback from Members, to the Homes and Communities Portfolio Advisory Committee on 6 February 2014 outlining the next stages of review and proposals for the development of the policy. In his supplementary question, Councillor Burden raised concern that the eligibility criteria for accessing social housing had been tightened under the watch of the current Cabinet Member for Homes and Communities, and whether the Cabinet Member agreed that was the case. In response, Councillor Geoff Brown advised that he did not agree with the comment and officers were simply implementing a government policy. However, the criteria was in need of addressing and therefore the policy was being reviewed with urgency.

150


9

FIRST BUS FARE INCREASES CC/136 Councillor James requested to know whether the Portfolio Holder for Transport and Waste could explain why the Council had not exerted more pressure on First bus, who had just implemented some huge fare increases for passengers in Mid and West Cornwall, in the name of simplifying the fare structure. She advised that she drew these to the attention of the Director of First bus, for her own area, and got the increase reduced from a 36% rise to a 9% rise (50p instead of £2). She understood that on subsidised routes the Council could restrict the increase to the Consumer Price Index, which for the year to November 2013 was 2.1%; rather different to the price rises of between 10% and 40%, in many cases. As she pointed out to the Director of First Bus, such huge increases would be counter productive as fewer passengers would use the buses, making them less not more economic. The Director thanked her for bringing the price increases in her area to his attention, and took swift action, which would suggest that a more rigorous challenge may have got a better result for passengers in other parts of the County. In response, Councillor Biscoe stated that he recognised the concern of the public and of Members over recent price increases. Members would recall that this pressure became all too apparent in the autumn when one of Cornwall’s largest bus operators decided to withdraw services from the west of Cornwall. The Council had no control over the fares charged by operators on their commercial network, but the Council could invoke a clause in the contract for supported services which would prevent an operator from increasing fares by more than the consumer price index during the life of the current contract. However, the fact that this control would expire with the contracts at the end of March, coupled with the fact that operators on supported routes could withdraw at short notice, it was considered that if the Council had invoked the contractual position, operators would serve notice thus leaving the travelling public without key services. The bus industry in Cornwall was operating in a very challenging environment and if the Council was to secure the best network of services for the public it needed to work in conjunction with operators. He advised that he would continue to work with the industry to provide the best level of service that the Council could achieve for the public of Cornwall and welcomed Councillor James’ and other Members’ efforts in this regard. He finally explained that as the Council entered the tender period he strongly suggested to the operator that it was better to have passengers on buses at prices which took account of low pay, scattered settlements and the needs of the wider economy for connectivity, and that lower fare prices, which were affordable, would be a long-term investment in Cornish public transport.

151


10

NEWQUAY STRATEGIC ROUTE CC/137 Councillor Fitter queried, given that the Council now had in place all the planning permission necessary for the construction of the Newquay Strategic Route, whether Councillor Biscoe could assure him that the funding to complete the Phase One of the project was now in place and the now new expected start and completion date. In response, Councillor Biscoe advised that the funding for the first phase of the Newquay Strategic Route was not yet in place. The estimated costs currently exceeded the available budget and all funding opportunities were being considered. The Council had been successful in securing £1.9m of Department for Transport Local Pinchpoint funding to contribute to delivery of the Rialton end of the Newquay Strategic Route. This link would contribute to improving access to the Aerohub Enterprise Zone. In his supplementary question Councillor Fitter advised that the residents of Quintrell Downs would be disappointed as the route was meant to relieve traffic. He therefore requested reassurance that the Rialton end would not commence until the Council had completed Phase One of the Newquay Strategic Route project. In response, Councillor Biscoe explained that the Council was committed to completing the Newquay Strategic Route and funding would be found, however as Pinchpoint funding had been secured to deliver the Rialton road it would be completed before completion of Phase One. FIRST GROUP CC/138 In light of the response given to Councillor James’ earlier question, Councillor Andrewes withdrew his question. DECISION MAKING PROCESSES OF THE COMMITTEES OF THE COUNCIL CC/139 Councillor Ellis requested to know whether the Chairman of the Scrutiny Management Committee would ask his committee to consider, as part of its work plan, a review as to whether the decision making processes of the committees of the Council, were as open and transparent as they should be, in accordance with the principles in the Constitution. In response, Councillor Burden explained that any review of the decision making process was the responsibility of the Constitution and Governance Committee. This Committee was scheduled to undertake a review of the governance structure later this year and undoubtedly this would include the decision making process. Councillor Scrafton was a Member of the Scrutiny Management Committee and also the Chairman of the Constitution and Governance Committee and he therefore suggested that

152


11

Councillor Ellis raise this issue with him and his Committee as part of that review. BUDGET CONSULTATION PROCESS CC/140 Councillor Ferguson questioned whether the Chairman of the Scrutiny Management Committee would ask his committee to consider whether the manner in which the results of the Budget Consultation process were presented to Full Council were in line with the quality it would expect of reports to Full Council. In response, Councillor Burden explained that the Scrutiny Management Committee had concluded its Select Committee review of the budget process. That said, he had asked the Leader to attend the Committee’s next meeting on 28 February 2014 to discuss the Cabinet’s response to that review and he was happy to put the question to him at that time. In her supplementary question, Councillor Ferguson requested to know whether the previous budget consultation ‘Hard Choices- Difficult Decisions’ would be considered against the current outcome of the recent budget consultation process. In response, Councillor Burden assured Councillor Ferguson that the investigation at the Committee’s next meeting would be broad and the matter would be dealt with appropriately. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE CABINET (Agenda No. 9) CC/141 The following recommendations were considered. REVISED PRE-SUBMISSION DRAFT LOCAL PLAN (Agenda No. 9.1) CC/142 The Chairman advised that housing numbers under recommendation 1 would be considered first followed by policy matters under recommendation 2. It was moved by Councillor Hannaford and seconded by Councillor Geoff Brown that the draft Local Plan be amended and agreed with the overall housing number being 47,500 with the associated distribution being set out in Appendix 1 to the report to Cabinet dated 27 November 2013. In moving the motion Councillor Hannaford explained officers had strongly advised that the overall housing number should reflect national demographic projections so as to be robust at the Examination; this would be the higher option, i.e. 47,500. She advised that a lower figure would only delay the process for up to two years, leave the Council open to

153


12

challenge and leave Cornwall unprotected against the National Planning Policy Framework, much like the county of Wiltshire had experienced. The Council needed an adopted plan to protect itself, and so that Council planning policies on renewable energy and affordable housing carried some weight and were defendable. The Council was successful at delivering affordable homes but could do better with a Local Plan in place. Furthermore, 27,000 houses had already been granted planning permission and 7,000 of those had already been built, meaning the real figure was 27,500 houses over the next 17 years. In seconding the motion Councillor Geoff Brown reminded Members that the Restormel Local Plan was rejected in the past due to proposing housing figures that were below the recommended number. It was important that Cornwall Council adopted a plan to take control of planning decisions. He advised that an early review would be carried out to ensure that the Plan was fit for purpose. It was moved as an amendment by Councillor Chamberlain and seconded by Councillor Keeling that, in order to produce sustainable development in Cornwall: (1) subject to (2) below, the Council amends the draft plan and agrees the overall housing number at 33,000 and that the distribution of housing be in proportion to the proposed distributions in the proposal for 47,500 homes except that no area will be allocated a lower number than their extant planning permissions as at 14th January 2014 and, as necessary, the total of 33,000 and the number of homes distributed to any such area will be correspondingly increased; and (2) Members may review the number of homes allocated to their Community Network Area and request on or before the end of March 2014 that a higher number be allocated; and (3) The final total and any proposed revisions be submitted to Council for its approval before submission for public consultation. In explaining his amendment, Councillor Chamberlain expressed the view that a lower figure of 33,000 houses was preferable. 33,000 was based on building homes to accommodate a growth in population of 13.6% over 20 years using Cornwall population of 2011 census as a basis. The growth rate was based on the average rate of growth in population over the last 10 years (6.8%) and on occupancy rate of 2.27 per household. The growth rate had been declining. In the 1990's it was 8.5%. The occupancy rate had only declined from 2.28 to 2.27 in the last 10 years. Any community network area may produce a plan for additional growth. Those areas who felt that they were forced to accept unsustainable growth rates would be put under less pressure. The lower number was therefore a baseline and not a maximum limit.

154


13

He further explained that Planning Minister Nick Boles MP had provided assurance that Cornwall Council could use more realistic and appropriate data to agree a housing target based on local needs, providing it had the evidence to prove how Cornwall was going to meet its local housing needs. It was therefore considered that for the above reasons together with the Planning minister’s advice that the Council could opt for a lower figure. During discussion Members raised a number of views in respect of the proposed housing figures, including:-

(i) People with low wages would continue to be penalised as they would not be able to afford new homes. The Council’s priority should therefore be to develop affordable rental property.

(ii) There were issues in terms of the fact that 28,000 people were on the Homechoice register. The view was expressed that there was a need for more council owned and run housing which may help to address this housing need.

(iii) It appeared that the government already had a housing figure in mind for Cornwall and was therefore only providing the illusion of local choice. The Council therefore had no choice but to agree on a higher housing figure to protect Cornwall as this was the only option the Planning Inspector would approve.

(iv) It was suggested that farming made better use of the land into the future than housing development and therefore the Planning Inspectorate should be challenged as there was a will for a lower figure if it could be accepted.

(v) It was considered that the lower figure of 33,000 was not deliverable and would be rejected, therefore the Council should approve a plan backed up by robust evidence. Defiance against government would only cost the Council valuable time and money.

(vi) The figure of 33,000 properties was based on the fact that no area would be allocated a lower than their extant consents, which would automatically add another 3,000 to the target. Furthermore local Members could request that a higher number be allocated, which presented the opportunity for thousands more to be added to the total. The proposal was therefore too vague when the Council needed a definitive plan.

(vii) There was a requirement for a time limit to be set for the construction of the properties as there was currently no requirement for developers to build in a set timeline.

(viii) The amendment put Members back in control of housing numbers as they may review the number of homes allocated to their Community Network Area and request on or before the end of March 2014 that a higher number be allocated.

155


14

(ix) There was a need to bring empty properties back into use to address housing need.

(x) The Environment, Heritage and Planning Portfolio Advisory Committee had sought to engage with all Members on the subject of housing numbers. Discussions had taken place on 47,500, 42,000 and 38,000. It was therefore disappointing that the 33,000 had not been raised during those meetings as it was important that any number needed concrete evidence to support it.

(xi) If the Council failed to have an agreed plan in place with appropriate housing numbers as otherwise there would be no controls over development. The National Planning Policy Framework would not provide such protection.

(xii) The higher number was important in relation to the development and enactment of Neighbourhood Plans.

[In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 16.4, at least one third of the Members present requested that a recorded vote be taken on the amendment proposed by Councillor Chamberlain] On a vote the amendment was lost (28 for, 78 against and 0 abstentions) Councillors voting for the amendment:- Blakeley, Chamberlain, Eddowes, Elliott, Ellis, Ferguson, Fitter, Fonk, French, Hall, Harding, Hatton, Hicks, Jewell, Keeling, Keogh, Lambshead, Lewis, Maddern, S Mann, McWilliam, Nicholas, Pascoe, Pearn, Penhaligon, Stoneman, White and Wilkins. Councillors voting against the amendment:- Andrewes, Atherton, Austin, Biscoe, Geoff Brown, Glenton Brown, M Brown, Bull, Bunney, Buscombe, Callan, Candy, Chopak, Cole, Coombe, Dolley, Duffin, Dwelly, Eathorne-Gibbons, Egerton, Ellison, Farrington, Folkes, Frank, George, German, Greenslade, Hannaford, Harris, Harvey, Hawken, Haycock, Heyward, Hobbs, Holley, Holmes, Hughes, James, Jenkin, Kaczmarek, Kenny, Kerridge, King, Long, Lugg, Luke, P Martin, May, McKenna, A Mitchell, P Mitchell, Nolan, Olivier, Parsons, Paynter, Pearce, Penny, Pollard, Pugh, Rich, Rix, P Rogerson, S Rogerson, Rotchell, Rowe, Sanger, Saunby, Scrafton, Shuttlewood, Taylor, I Thomas, A Toms, H Toms, Trubody, Wallis, Watson, Webber and Wood. [The meeting was adjourned at 12.40pm and recommenced at 1.25pm] It was moved as an amendment by Councillor Andrewes and seconded by Councillor Penhaligon that within the proposed housing allocation option of 47,500 for Cornwall, the allocation for St Ives and Carbis Bay be reduced from 1000 to 850. The overall housing figure would therefore be reduced from 47,500 to 47,350.

156


15

During discussion the view was expressed that the figure should remain at 1000 as there were many families in need of homes and many houses in the area were over occupied. Planning permission for 700 homes had already been agreed in the St Ives area, which left 300 for the remaining 17 years. On a vote the amendment was lost. It was moved as a further amendment by Councillor Olivier and seconded by Councillor Dwelly that that the housing target for the Penwith Community Network Area be increased from 2500 to 3850, with a breakdown as follows - Penzance – 2500 and Residual area – 1350. In setting out the reasons for his amendment, Councillor Olivier expressed the view that the housing allocation in the Penwith Community Network Area should be increased on the grounds that housing need in Penzance was very high, possibly the highest in Cornwall, and that the current allowance, taking into account those houses already built or permitted, was too low to meet this need. In particular the target for the rural areas outside Penzance was, in his view,so low that it would have the consequence of increasing pressure on housing in the town itself. How much of the target should be allocated to the town and how much to the surrounding rural areas could be decided after the public consultation process. He requested that the housing target for the Penzance area be set at a level that reflected its share of the population of Cornwall. 3850 was a percentage of the overall target for Cornwall that matched the Penwith Community Network Area share of Cornwall’s population. He appreciated that the latest recommendation raised the previous target for Penzance from 1400 to 2150, taking into account those already built or permitted this amounted to an average of less than 100 a year, until 2030. The alternative target of 2500, would imply that Penzance grew by approximately 15% up to 2030. The latest recommended target for the rural area adjacent to Penzance meant, in practice, a target of less than 30 homes a year until 2030 for everywhere between St Hilary and Lands End, including the St Just and Pendeen urban area. Such a low figure would undoubtedly increase housing pressure in Penzance. The alternative target of 1350 – approximately 50 per year, was nearer to the reality of local need. Furthermore, in respect of local services, Penzance had its own hospital and schools in Penzance had a surplus of nearly 500 places. Schools in the Penwith Community Network Area as a whole had a surplus of nearly 900 places. The increase to the target was ultimately an increase to the overall level of growth for Cornwall. During discussion a number of comments were raised, including:-

157


16

(i) The Penwith Community Network Area deserved its fair share of the

allocation, particularly in light of the housing shortage it was experiencing.

(ii) Disbelief at the proposed figure, as it was suggested it had not been through proper consultation through Town and Parish Councillors within the affected area.

(iii) The view was expressed that the Penwith infrastructure could not support an increase to the proposed number.

(iv) Penzance Town and Parish Council were aware of the amendment, but had not participated in a formal debate on the matter.

On a vote the amendment was lost. A vote was then taken on the substantive motion by Councillors Hannaford and Geoff Brown. [In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 16.4, at least one third of the Members present requested that a recorded vote be taken on the substantive motion] On a vote the motion was won (62 for, 31 against and 10 abstentions) Councillors voting for the motion:- Councillors Andrewes, Atherton, Austin, Geoff Brown, M Brown, Bull, Bunney, Buscombe, Callan, Candy, Chopak, Coombe, Dolley, Duffin, Dwelly, Eathorne-Gibbons, Egerton, Ellison, Farrington, Folkes, Frank, George, German, Greenslade, Hannaford, Harris, Haycock, Heyward, Hobbs, Holley, Hughes, James, Kaczmarek, Kenny, Kerridge, Lugg, S Mann, May, McKenna, A Mitchell, P Mitchell, Olivier, Parsons, Paynter, Penny, Pollard, Pugh, Rix, P Rogerson, S Rogerson, Rotchell, Rowe, Sanger, Scrafton, Sleeman, Taylor, H Toms, Trubody, Wallis, Watson, Webber and Wood. Councillors voting against the motion:- Biscoe, Blakeley, Chamberlain, Eddowes, Elliott, Ellis, Ferguson, Fitter, Fonk, French, Hall, Harding, Hatton, Hawken, Hicks, Holmes, Jewell, Keeling, Lambshead, Lewis, Maddern, P Martin, McWilliam, Nicholas, Pascoe, Pearn, Penhaligon, Stoneman, I Thomas, White and Wilkins. Councillors who abstained from voting on the motion:- Councillors Cole, Curnow, Jenkin, King, Long, Luke, Nolan, Rich, Saunby and Shuttlewood. RESOLVED that the draft Local Plan be amended and agreed with the overall housing number being 47,500 with the associated distribution

158


17

being set out in Appendix 1 to the report to Cabinet dated 27 November 2013. It was then moved by Councillor Hannaford and seconded by Councillor Geoff Brown that the draft Cornwall Local Plan, as revised in accordance with the agreed option under resolution 1 and as further revised as set out in section 2 and appendices 3 and 4 of the report to Cabinet dated 27 November 2013 be approved for public consultation. It was moved as an amendment by Councillor S Mann and seconded by Councillor Wilkins that the draft Cornwall Local Plan, as revised in accordance with (a) above and as further revised as set out in section 2 and Appendices 3 and 4 of the report to Cabinet dated 27 November 2013, be approved for public consultation, subject to the reinstatement of Policy 10 relating to Publicly Owned Sites. During discussion it was commented that following the consultation concerns were raised that the Council Policy 10 - Publicly Owned Sites imposed an additional burden on the public sector where the assets were being used to support frontline services at a time of reduced public spending. On the basis that the normal policy for affordable housing was proposed as 50% or 40% depending upon area, the Environment, Heritage and Planning Portfolio Advisory Committee accepted that the policy could be deleted. However, it was requested that Policy 10 be reinstated to demonstrate the Councils commitment to provide affordable houses. Councillors Hannaford and Geoff Brown as the original proposer and seconder of the motion agreed to include the amendment within their proposal and on a vote on the substantive motion it was RESOLVED that the draft Cornwall Local Plan, as revised in accordance with (a) above and as further revised as set out in section 2 and Appendices 3 and 4 of the report to Cabinet dated 27 November 2013, be approved for public consultation, subject to the reinstatement of Policy 10 relating to Publicly Owned Sites. TREASURY MANAGEMENT MID YEAR REVIEW (Agenda No. 9.2) CC/143 Councillor Folkes highlighted that long term borrowing rates remained over 4% and there were no plans for the Council to externally borrow in advance during the remainder of 2013/14. There were also no breaches of the Treasury Strategy during the first two quarters of 2013/14. It was moved by Councillor Folkes, seconded by Councillor Pollard and

159


18

RESOLVED that the Annual Treasury Management Strategy and mid year review for 2013/14 be noted. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM COMMITTEES (Agenda No. 10) CC/144 The following recommendations were considered. THE HARBOURS BOARD- 28 NOVEMBER 2013 (Agenda No. 11) CC/145 It was moved by Councillor Rich, seconded by Councillor Geoff Brown and RESOLVED that Incorporation of Bude, Portreath, Portscatho, Portwrinkle and Prince of Wales Pier (Falmouth) into Harbours Board As from 1 April 2014 Bude, Portreath, Portscatho, Portwrinkle and Prince of Wales Pier be incorporated into the Harbours Board and any deficits or surplus arising from these harbours to remain being met or going to the General Fund until the Harbour Revision Order is in place. Independent Board Member- New Second Term Mr Martin Gilbert be re-appointed to serve a second full term as an Independent Voting Member of the Harbours Board for a period of three years from January 2014 to January 2017. MOTIONS (Agenda No. 12) CC/146 The following motions were considered. SPARE ROOM SUBSIDY (BEDROOM TAX): PROPOSER: COUNCILLOR JAMES; SECONDER: COUNCILLOR FONK (Agenda No. 12.1) CC/147 The Chairman advised that under Procedure Rule 12.3 he was referring the motion to the Homes and Communities Portfolio Advisory Committee due to the fact that there were potentially significant financial considerations and further background information and/or detailed consideration was required. He further informed Members that the motion was intended to return for debate at the Council’s next meeting on 25 February 2014.

160


19

FAIR FUNDING CAMPAIGN: PROPOSER: COUNCILLOR POLLARD; SECONDER: COUNCILLOR ROWE (Agenda No. 12.2) CC/148 In moving the motion Councillor Pollard stated that the people of Cornwall were disadvantaged. Central government funding arrangements currently resulted in urban authorities receiving significantly more per capita funding than rural authorities (£487 per head against £409 for rural areas). If Cornwall Council was funded at the same per capita basis as the average urban authority, its annual funding would be £42m higher. In part, this was also seen to account for average council tax levels in urban areas being 22% lower than in rural areas. The Council had to argue the facts of unfairness and close the funding gap through a case that was accurate and defendable. He welcomed approaches as to how this could be taken forward and urged all Members to support the motion. During discussion the Leader was congratulated for presenting the motion to Council. It was understood that the Council needed to be specific regarding what was not ‘fair’ and that it should be careful not to appear to be complaining to government without a credible case. A number of comments were raised, including:-

(i) Whether there was a case for the matter to be taken through a judicial system via the Local Government Association.

(ii) It would be beneficial for analysis to be undertaken as to how Cornwall’s services were funded in comparison to other Local Authorities.

(iii) There was no transparency regarding how central government allocated its funding, which should be addressed.

(iv) Cornwall’s MPs should be encouraged to work with the Council to lobby government in support of fairer funding.

(v) The Council could develop a charter, signed by Cornwall’s 6 MPs, plus the Council’s membership in support of fairer funding.

It was therefore moved by Councillor Pollard, seconded by Councillor Rowe and

RESOLVED that this Council:

- conscious of the gravity of the national economic situation;

- recognising nevertheless the importance to local people, and especially to the vulnerable, of high quality local services;

- regretting that severe cuts to funding for local councils from central government, together with practical constraints imposed on the ability of councils to raise levels of council tax, will progressively impede local

161


20

councils from carrying out their responsibilities in the way they would wish;

- aware that the balanced budget it approved in November 2013 imposes unwelcome limits on the services it can provide, and that future budgets are likely to take this process further;

- concerned at the apparent failure of central government to recognise the serious impact of its local government policies on the lives of those most dependent upon them;

- concerned that the current funding formula used by the government is imbalanced and underfunds rural authorities in comparison with urban councils;

- determined to take all reasonable steps to make central government aware of the real hardships its local government policies threaten to impose:

(1) Agrees that the Leader, in cooperation with the Cabinet and Group Leaders, works closely with all Members of Parliament representing constituencies in Cornwall to identify and take advantage of every reasonable opportunity to draw the attention of central government to the concerns expressed above, and to develop a campaign aimed at securing fair funding for Cornwall Council.

(2) Agrees that the Leader bring this motion, and the action being taken to implement it, to the attention of the leaders of other local councils and Town and Parish Councils in Cornwall.

WEALTH FROM WASTE - RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE TRANSPORT AND WASTE PORTFOLIO ADVISORY COMMITTEE (Agenda No. 12.3) CC/149 It was moved by Councillor Taylor and seconded by Councillor Andrewes that:

1. The waste management motion, referred to the Transport and Waste Portfolio Advisory Committee at the meeting on 3 September 2013, not be supported for the reasons set out in the report.

2. The contractor be invited to a future meeting of the Transport and

Waste Portfolio Advisory Committee in order to hold discussions on how recycling rates can be increased in future.

During discussion disappointment was expressed by the original supporters of the motion to Council on 3 September 2013 regarding the Transport and Waste Portfolio Advisory Committee’s decision. The view was expressed that the recommendations ought to be refused to allow Members to debate the motion brought forward in September, i.e. for Cornwall Council to agree to:

162


21

(i) Review its approach to dealing with Cornwall’s domestic waste, as presently set out in the “integrated waste management contract,” which includes a focus on a large centralised incinerator. (ii) Explore alternative approaches to waste management that are greener, less expensive and better for the Cornish environment.” It was further suggested that ‘includes a focus on a large centralised incinerator’ could be removed, as the purpose of the motion was to explore other technologies in light of research data that showed there were better ways to deal with waste. In contrast, a number of points were highlighted in favour of the Transport and Waste Portfolio Advisory Committee recommendations, including that:-

(i) Although regrettable in view of other technologies now available, the Council had made a decision on its waste strategy and the contract had been signed, there was no option but to continue as planned.

(ii) In order to pursue an alternative method for treating Cornwall’s residual municipal waste, the Council would have to review its existing waste policy and terminate the IWM Contract at a high cost in the region of £300m; the risk to the Council was unacceptable.

(iii) The incinerator was in the process of being built, and it was therefore questioned how it could be criticised until it was operational.

(iv) All agreed that recycling rates could be improved, which was why the contractor was being invited to discuss this matter.

(v) There were significant savings to be made if the Council recycled mixed plastics.

(vi) The Transport and Waste Portfolio Advisory Committee could agree on a recycling target and strategy for achieving it.

The Monitoring Officer clarified that all Members did have the opportunity to debate Councillor King’s motion. The Chairman of Council, with advice from officials, determined that Councillor King’s Motion should be referred to the Transport and Waste Portfolio Advisory Committee. The motion had been considered in detail by the committee and recommendations brought back to Full Council for a decision. On a vote the motion was won and it was RESOLVED that

1. The waste management motion, referred to the Transport and Waste Portfolio Advisory Committee at the meeting on 3 September 2013, not be supported for the reasons set out in the report.

163


22

2. The contractor be invited to a future meeting of the Transport and Waste Portfolio Advisory Committee in order to hold discussions on how recycling rates can be increased in future.

[In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 16.5 the following Councillors requested that their names be recorded as voting against the motion: Burden, Cole, King, Luke, Long, McKenna] CONTROL OF SATELLITE NAVIGATION SYSTEMS - RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE TRANSPORT AND WASTE PORTFOLIO ADVISORY COMMITTEE (Agenda No. 12.4) CC/150 In speaking to his original motion, Councillor A Toms recognised that there were similar issues elsewhere and confirmed he would continue to campaign. It was moved by Councillor Taylor, seconded by Councillor Andrewes and RESOLVED that

1. It be noted that the Portfolio Holder for Transport and Waste has taken action in relation to the Satellite Navigation System Motion referred to the Transport and Waste Portfolio Advisory Committee by Cornwall Council at its meeting held on 3 September 2013.

2. The Actions of the Portfolio Holder for Transport and Waste,

principally relating to making representations to Central Government as requested in the original motion, be endorsed.

REVIEW OF TRANSITIONAL SUPPORT SCHEME AND EXCEPTIONAL HARDSHIP FUND - RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE FINANCE AND RESOURCES PORTFOLIO ADVISORY COMMITTEE (Agenda No. 12.5) CC/151 It was moved by Councillor Elliott and seconded by Councillor Eathorne-Gibbons that

(i) No change be made to the Localised Council Tax Support (LCTS) scheme for 2014/15;

(ii) The impact of welfare reforms continue to be reviewed by officers, in particular Council Tax Support during 2014/15, in order to inform consideration of any changes in the LCTS scheme for 2015/16;

Further, that the revised Exceptional Relief / Transitional Support Policy, as set out at Appendix 1 to the report, be approved, with the main revisions being as follows:-

164


23

(i) The Exceptional Relief/Transitional Support scheme be extended for a further year and funded through any underspend on the scheme in 2013/14;

(ii) The Exceptional Relief/Transitional Support Policy be

amended to increase the maximum level of support from 50% to 100%, setting a revised criteria for the assessment to include the implementation of a £10 buffer to allow for hard to qualify or quantify expenditure in order to assist the most vulnerable customers affected by the Council Tax Support Scheme; and

(iii) Further promotion of the Exceptional Relief/Transitional

Support scheme be carried out to ensure that more of those persons most in need of support are made aware of the scheme.

It was moved as an amendment by Councillor Olivier and seconded by Councillor Webber that recommendations from the Finance and Resources Portfolio Advisory Committee be approved subject to the addition of a new part three, as follows with the original part three becoming part four:- (iii) the Exceptional Relief/Transitional Support Policy Scheme be amended so that all claimants for relief who have had their benefits reduced by the so-called “bedroom tax” and who, following the adoption of the Localised Council Tax Support Scheme on 31 January 2013, are only entitled to claim up to 75% support towards payment of their Council Tax liability, will receive 100% support in respect of their Council Tax liability In proposing his amendment, Councillor Olivier explained that the 25% of the standard Council Tax charge, levied by Cornwall Council on households that were previously exempt from Council Tax, was higher than that imposed by the majority of local authorities. In addition, the impact on households who had been hit by the Bedroom Tax, as well a new 25% Council Tax charge, was unfair, particularly as they were on minimum income. He therefore proposed, as he had previously expressed in his original motion at the last full Council meeting, that funds be set aside to help with hardship arising from imposing Council Tax on the lowest income households, to ensure that no household was affected by both the Bedroom Tax, and the new 25% Council Tax band levied on households previously exempt. During debate a number of points were raised, including:-

(i) The bedroom tax was impractical, however it was not believed that funds should be prioritised to support only those impacted by it. The help should be targeted to those most in need regardless of their circumstances.

(ii) The Transitional Support Scheme was only supposed to last for a year, however it had not been fully utilised and

165


24

therefore the continuation of it into the next financial year was supported with the caveat that it be better advertised in future.

(iii) Providing an increase of 100% Council Tax relief to households and then removing it the following year was not good planning as it may cause financial difficulty to those who had previously used the fund. It was therefore suggested that the current level of support be retained until the review had been undertaken in order that the Hardship fund could be extended for a subsequent year.

Notice of further amendment was proposed by Councillor Ferguson and seconded by Councillor S Mann that (ii) of the original proposal be amended to state that the current level of Exceptional Relief/Transitional Support Policy support be retained at 50% for 2014/15. On a vote the amendment by Councillor Olivier was lost. During further debate on the notice of further amendment, a number of points were raised, including:-

(i) The Council had established that there were some people that were not able to pay anything towards their Council Tax and they were the ones targeted with the 100% relief.

(ii) Permanent Council Tax support systems were being considered as part of the welfare reforms review. The amendment suggested that the Hardship fund was time restricted, which was not the case in the context of the review.

(iii) It was important not to prejudge the review, and therefore some of the Hardship fund should be reserved in order that the Transitional Support Scheme may be extended by a further year if required.

On a vote the amendment by Councillor Ferguson was lost. A vote was then taken on the substantive motion which was won and it was RESOLVED that

1. No change be made to the Localised Council Tax Support (LCTS) scheme for 2014/15;

2. The impact of welfare reforms continue to be reviewed by officers,

in particular Council Tax Support during 2014/15, in order to inform consideration of any changes in the LCTS scheme for 2015/16;

166


25

Further, that the revised Exceptional Relief / Transitional Support Policy, as set out at Appendix 1 to the report, be approved, with the main revisions being as follows:-

(i) The Exceptional Relief/Transitional Support scheme be extended for a further year and funded through any underspend on the scheme in 2013/14;

(ii) The Exceptional Relief/Transitional Support Policy be amended to increase the maximum level of support from 50% to 100%, setting a revised criteria for the assessment to include the implementation of a £10 buffer to allow for hard to qualify or quantify expenditure in order to assist the most vulnerable customers affected by the Council Tax Support Scheme; and

(iii) Further promotion of the Exceptional Relief/Transitional Support scheme be carried out to ensure that more of those persons most in need of support are made aware of the scheme.

REPORTS FROM CABINET MEMBERS (Agenda No. 13) CC/152 It was moved by Councillor Pollard, seconded by Councillor Rowe and RESOLVED that reports be received from Cabinet Members. Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Reputation and Performance In response to a question the Leader advised that he would ensure at his next meeting with senior officers and Cornwall’s MP’s that he raised matters regarding renewable energy on the agenda, i.e. geo-thermal energy and fracking. Deputy Leader and Devolution and Localism The Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Devolution and Localism noted the correct spelling of ‘Breage’. Economy and Culture In response to a question the Cabinet Member for Economy and Culture advised that further to the recent informal session hosted by the Leader, topics important to Cornwall’s local economy suggested by the membership at that event would be discussed at the meeting of the Portfolio Advisory Committee on 15 January 2014. All Members were welcome to attend and participate.

167


26

Health and Adult Care The Cabinet Member for Health and Adult Care highlighted points 4 and 7 in her report and deferred to the previous Cabinet Member for Health and Adult Care to answer a question regarding a Smarties presentation ceremony. In response, Councillor A Toms advised that Laurence Reed, from BBC Radio Cornwall had been invited to present staff with their awards rather than the Chairman as he was heavily involved in holding the Council to account. Members were advised that Mr Reed had been impressed by those who had worked hard for the authority. Children and Young People In response to a question, the Cabinet Member for Children and Young People advised that approximately 82% of secondary schools in Cornwall were rated ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’. He further advised that he would provide the accurate figure and details of the schools to the questioner via email. Partnerships In response to questions, the Cabinet Member for Partnerships advised that:-

(i) He congratulated those involved in providing an air link to the Isles of Scilly over the Christmas period. Unfortunately due to the weather occasionally the only link was via Newquay airport.

(ii) The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) was aware of the inaccuracy in respect of the spare room subsidy policy. He had raised the issue with relevant officers of the Council and would email all Members with information on the DWP investigation on spare room subsidy and issues relating to reclaiming of money.

(iii) Cornwall Council had collected 56.5% of its Council tax in comparison to a national average of 55.9%. In respect of business rates the Council had collected 61% against a comparator group national average of 60.1%.

Finance and Resources In response to questions, the Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources advised that:-

(i) He proposed to cut back on non statutory advertising in newspapers, but not statutory advertising, i.e. planning, highways and licensing matters.

168


27

(ii) The Council naming policy was under his remit as it was dealt with by the Information Services team.

(iii) The Council was aware that its internet search facility was not as good as it could be. The mechanism behind the facility was currently being addressed and he suggested that concerns should be raised with the Corporate Web Manager.

Homes and Communities In response to questions, the Cabinet Member for Homes and Communities advised that:-

(i) He would pass on Members’ kind words of thanks to everyone involved in tackling aspects of public safety. He was impressed by Emergency Planning and the collaboration of the Environment Agency, Fire Service and Cormac during difficult conditions.

(ii) Construction of the Tolvaddon fire station would commence very shortly.

(iii) The Council had received a new homes bonus funding, which he would ensure was spent on delivering affordable homes and bringing empty homes back into use.

Environment, Heritage and Planning In response to questions, the Cabinet Member for Environment, Heritage and Planning advised that:-

(i) There were two remaining places left on the Local Nature Partnership outside body. She was keen for a broad spectrum of representation on the Partnership if possible.

(ii) The more the Council consulted on the affordable housing Supplementary Planning Document the more weight it would hold in planning decisions.

Transport and Waste In response to questions, the Cabinet Member for Transport and Waste advised that:-

(i) He was happy to meet with Members to discuss issues with roads in their areas but they needed to recognise that resources were on the basis of care and maintenance only.

(ii) He welcomed the successful implementation of the garden waste collections.

(iii) He would meet with the Interim Corporate Director of Environment to ensure that the new procedure for Members’ local highways schemes was simple but workable and based on safety-based proposals. The scheme would be introduced

169


28

as soon as possible following internal discussions regarding how the scheme would be managed.

(iv) The tendering process was a complex process as described in his report and related to bus companies being asked to indicate what commercial routes would be available and then the Council would consider subsidising non-commercial routes. The process didnot relate to the setting of bus fares which was within the remit of the bus company.

(v) Pot holes were assessed against a criteria as to whether they presented a health and safety risk to road users, not depth or size of the hole.

(vi) A breakdown of what the average recycling rate of 58.3% at Household Waste Recycling Centres (HWRCs) meant in practice would be provided.

(vii) He acknowledged that the verges between the A30 at Chiverton and Hayle needed cleaning, as they had been cut back to reveal the litter beneath. He advised that he would inform Cory and if necessary write to the Highways Agency.

(viii) He would visit south east Cornwall to see the dangerous junctions along the A38. Although he cautioned that many of Cornwall’s ‘A’ roads had dangerous junctions and the problem needed to be considered in the context of diminishing resources.

(ix) In reference to point 1 of his report relating to railways, officers were encouraged by the meeting. A productive conversation had been had regarding the re-signalling of the mainline and the sleeper refurbishment project.

(x) Members were welcome to attend the next meeting of the Transport and Waste Portfolio Advisory Committee which would receive up to date information on recycling rates and an explanation of the performance of HWRC’s.

REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES WITHOUT RECOMMENDATIONS (Agenda No. 14) CC/153 It was moved by Councillor Wood, seconded by Councillor Kerridge and RESOLVED that the Council receives reports from the Council’s Committees and receives questions and answers on those reports. The meeting ended at 4.26 pm. [The agenda and reports relating to the items referred to above are attached to the signed copy of the Minutes].

170

EP7 – Cheshire East Council Inspector’s Interim Report

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191