Apologies were received from Mr P Burbidge.

To receive details of any Member nominated to attend the meeting in place of a Member of the Committee.

There were none.

There were none.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 28 November 2011. (To Follow)

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the meeting held on 28 November 2011 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To consider suggestions from members of the public on issues the Committee could scrutinise in the future.

(There will be no discussion of the issue at the time when the matter is raised.  Consideration will be given to whether it should form part of the Committee’s work programme when compared with other competing priorities.)

The following suggestions were made:

·         That the possibility of creating an eastern bypass for Hereford along a route close to the Aylestone Ridge should be explored.

·         That the quality of Council surveys and the user of results of surveys should be examined.

To note questions received from the public and the items to which they relate.

(Questions are welcomed for consideration at a Scrutiny Committee meeting so long as the question is directly related to an item listed on the agenda.  If you have a question you would like to ask then please submit it no later than two working days before the meeting to the Committee Officer.  This will help to ensure that an answer can be provided at the meeting). 

Specific Questions received in advance of the meeting relevant to the item under discussion and answers to those questions were circulated at the meeting and are appended to the Minutes. 

It was noted that some submissions received had expressed opinions but contained no questions.  Some had contained questions not relevant to the item under discussion at the meeting.  All correspondence submitted for consideration at the meeting was provided to Members of the Committee on the day of the meeting.

To inform the Committee of the legal requirements governing consultation on the Local Development Framework (LDF) and to set out the consultation process undertaken to date by the Council. 

(This report does not detail the content of the LDF, nor the analysis of the responses received to the consultations.)

The Committee was invited to consider the legal requirements governing consultation on the Local Development Framework (LDF) and the consultation process undertaken to date by the Council.

The Head of Strategic Planning and Regeneration (HSPR) gave a presentation.  A copy of the presentation has been placed with the agenda papers in the Minute book.

In discussion by the Committee the following principal points were made:

·         The Cabinet Member - Environment, Housing and Planning commented on the extent of the consultation that had been undertaken over the past four years.  He emphasised that in undertaking the latest consultation the view had been taken that there should be a focus on those areas where the proposals had changed, making arrangements for consultation meetings in agreement with Ward Members.  He considered that, whilst there was always room for improvement, the Council had gone much further than the Regulations required it to do.

·         A Member criticised the consultation arrangements in Leominster and in particular the decision for officers not to attend a public meeting.  The Assistant Director - Economic, Environment and Cultural Services (ADEECS) commented that consideration had had to be given to how best to deploy the available resources.  There had been no significant changes to the proposals that affected Leominster.  The matter had been discussed by the Local Development Framework Working Group and three of the four Ward members had not considered a public meeting to be necessary.  The Local Development Framework had been included on the Town Council Planning Committee agenda and Officers had attended that meeting.  In Ledbury where a request from the Town Council for a public meeting had been received all Ward Members had supported this and officers had attended.

·         A Member criticised the process suggesting that not all the relevant information had been included in the consultation documents, for example a map showing the preferred route for the relief road,

·         It was suggested the process had not taken sufficient account of the need for the provision of infrastructure by statutory undertakers.  In reply it was stated that this would be considered as part of any future planning application.

·         A Member suggested that there had been insufficient explanation of Cabinet’s decisions in July and September on the Local Development Framework. 

·         A Member sought clarification on how consultees including businesses were identified.  Officers explained the basis on which consultees had been identified and notified.  It was noted that the list of consultees had been expanded at each round of consultation to include all those who submitted responses.  They were then notified as part of subsequent consultations

·         The HSPR said that he thought the consultation process that had commenced in 2007 had worked well and generated a good response. He also considered that efforts had been made to engage with hard to reach groups and seek views from the County as a whole.

·         The rationale behind the most recent round of consultation which had involved issuing a leaflet, with supporting information being available on the web, and inviting response by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.