The Leader of the Council introduced the report.  Proposed amendments to the recommendations published in the agenda papers had been circulated at the meeting.

 

The Leader commented that the proposed amendments provided for wider consultation on matters related to the Local Development Framework.  He noted that the proposals now envisaged 16,500 new homes being provided in a revised Plan covering the period 2011 to 2031, rather than the 18,000 required under the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) by 2026.

 

Economic Development Strategy

 

The Cabinet Member (Enterprise and Culture) presented the Economic Development Strategy, highlighting the infrastructure and development initiatives set out at page 17 of the agenda papers.

 

He noted the enormous pressures that would be placed on the County’s economy by the projected 30% growth in the number of people aged over 65 living within it.

 

The following principal points were made:

 

·         The Cabinet Member confirmed that the Strategy recognised the importance to the County’s economy of Tourism, food and drink production and businesses related to defence and security.

 

·         The Cabinet Member advised that the Council’s grant to Halo Ltd had been reduced by 5% for 2011/12 and would be subject to a 10% reduction in 2012/13.

 

·         The Leader of the It’s Our County Group complimented the Strategy’s focus on small and medium sized businesses and social enterprise but expressed regret that this focus was not reflected in the proposed Local Development Framework.

 

Local Development Framework

 

The Cabinet Member (Environment, Highways and Planning) presented the report.  He made the following principal points:

 

·         Provision of a minimum of 14,400 dwellings over the proposed revised life of the Plan 2011 to 2031 would imply zero employment growth.  However, the projected growth of 18,000 in the RSS was not considered appropriate.  It was now proposed to provide 16,500 new homes over the Plan’s life.

 

·         Hereford City remained the principal focus for development in the County but with a reduced level and a different pattern of employment.

 

·         A more dispersed pattern of development was proposed on smaller brownfield and greenfield sites in and around the City.  The Whitecross strategic housing site was to be deleted and that at Holmer West was to be reduced in scale.

 

·         The annual average completion for Hereford City would reduce from some 425 dwellings per annum to 325.  This was an achievable rate in line with previous rates of development.

·      The rate of growth year on year represented by the proposed provision of 16,500 dwellings in the County as a whole over the Plan’s life was not in excess of the growth rates experienced in recent years. 

 

He highlighted the programme for consultation as set out at paragraph 36 of the report; the proposals to adopt a cross-party approach; and the intention to hold a community poll on the proposal to construct a relief road to the west of Hereford, linked to the wider development proposals, as part of the overall consultation process.  He confirmed that the key points made during the consultation process would be documented.

 

The Cabinet Member added that a relief road was an essential part of the proposals, with both the Highways Agency and the Council holding the view that without it, and other transport measures, development proposals would result in gridlock in the City.

 

He considered that a relief road to the east of Hereford could bring some greater benefits. However, Consultants had advised that the western route was much more likely to obtain planning permission.  The original consultants’ report had been reviewed and this view maintained.  The Government had previously rejected funding for a relief road because the Council had itself been unable to agree on a preferred route.  He did not want that situation to be repeated.

 

He noted that limitations on the Council’s power to make use of S106 funding, due to come into force after April 2014, created a pressure on the timetable for approving the LDF.  The revised timetable set out in the report envisaged Council approving the Draft Core Strategy for submission to the Secretary of State in July 2012 with adoption of the Core Strategy in Spring 2013.

 

The following principal points were made in discussion:

 

·         The Leader of the It’s Our County Group expressed concern about two procedural issues: that the report in the agenda papers was not described as a key decision; and that the revised timetable for consideration of the LDF set out at paragraph 40 of the report overturned the timetable approved by Council in February 2011.

 

He also noted that at page 12 paragraph 16 of the agenda papers the report stated that: “The key risk to the adoption of the LDF is the appointed planning inspector’s findings on the soundness of the plan.”  He referred to the Planning Inspectorate’s 2009 Soundness Guidance which stated that, to be sound, a core strategy should be justified and effective and that the key questions to be asked at the Examination in Public concerned participation, research/fact finding and alternatives. He outlined a number of concerns he had about these aspects of the Plan’s Soundness including a lack of provision in the revised timetable for the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to examine the LDF process; that the recently published Economic Viability Assessment for the Core Strategy suggested a shortfall in the funding available for infrastructure; and a failure to examine a “no road” option.

 

·           The Chief Executive commented that as the Plans being considered by Cabinet formed part of the Policy Framework and accordingly were subject to approval by Council they were not a key decision for Cabinet.

 

A Member questioned this advice and the Leader of the Council stated that the definition of a key decision would be clarified.

 

·           The Assistant Director Environment, Planning and Waste, and the Planning Policy Manager commented in relation to the LDF’s soundness on the high level of feedback received to date and the intention to seek further views.  It was considered that evidence to support the Plan was robust.  The Economic Viability Assessment to which reference had been made had been undertaken in the previous year.  Research was ongoing and changes to the LDF were proposed.  The Local Housing Requirements Study had found that to maintain the working population and support some economic growth over the period 2011-31 a minimum of 14,400 dwellings was required.  A relief road was therefore a necessity as part of a package of transport measures.  The Planning Inspectorate had advised that if the Council wished to develop a relief road the Council must consult on one preferred option.

 

·           The Leader of the Herefordshire Independents Group commented that the Plan addressed a number of the concerns he had previously raised in particular the proposed development at Whitecross and at Holmer West.  He questioned whether it was appropriate to proceed with the development of the LDF until the implications of the Localism Bill were clearer.  He also sought clarification on the costs of the LDF process.

 

The Planning Policy Manager commented that in developing the LDF there was an awareness of the Localism Bill and there was sufficient flexibility within the Plan to accommodate its likely effects.  The costs of the LDF process were as set out in the report to Cabinet.

 

·         The huge challenge of supporting an ageing population in the County was discussed.

 

·         There was discussion of the respective merits of a relief road to the east of Hereford, a partial eastern route, and a relief road to the west.  It was stated that the recent granting of Enterprise Zone status for Rotherwas added to the need for a relief road. 

 

·         The report noted at page 43 paragraph 28 that an Independent Review of the Hereford Relief Road Technical Studies, produced by Amey, had been undertaken in June/July 2011 by Parsons Brinkerhoff Ltd.  Mr R Singleton of Parsons Brinkerhoff Ltd  was present at the meeting.  He reported that the Review had found that the approach in the technical study was sound.  Whilst a number of areas of the report needed to be strengthened this was unlikely to change the conclusions which were therefore also considered sound. 

 

He added that there was a much greater potential for the eastern route corridor options to have significant adverse effects on the River Wye Special Area of Conservation (SAC) compared to the western route corridor options.  It was known that the Environment Agency and Natural England, statutory consultees as part of the planning process, would be opposed to the eastern route. Whilst there was a presumption against development in a SAC, development could take place if a number of tests were met.  However, one of the principal tests would be to consider if there was a suitable alternative route to the eastern route and the western route was a suitable alternative.   A further factor to consider was that if planning permission was granted to proceed with development in a SAC the European Commission had to be informed of the proposal and it had the power to overturn a decision to grant permission.

 

·         The Cabinet Member (Environment, Housing and Planning) stated that whilst an eastern route was possible the estimated chance of it receiving approval based on the information presented by Parsons Brinkerhoff Ltd was minimal.

 

Local Transport Plan (LTP)

 

The Cabinet Member (Highways, Transportation and Waste) presented the report.

 

He drew attention to progress to date in reviewing the existing LTP and the proposals for the revised LTP.  He noted that new central Government guidance and reduced capital funding for local transport meant that whilst the LTP remained fit for purpose its relevance would reduce over time. The Council had also secured £4.9m through the Local Sustainable Transport Programme (LSTP) for 2011 to 2014 which would enable measures to support the local economy including the upgrading of Broad Street, Hereford and also to help to improve rural access.  A revised timetable for approving the revised LTP strategy was indicated in the report, proposing that a revised LTP would be adopted in July 2012 alongside approval of the Draft Core Strategy.

 

The Cabinet Member invited cross-party discussions on the Plan to promote creativity.

 

The following principal points were made in discussion:

 

·         It was questioned whether spending the Sustainable Transport funding on Broad Street was appropriate.  Cabinet Members commented that the work did contribute to sustainable transport by providing an improved street scene and encouraging pedestrian use.  The regeneration of Broad Street would bring economic benefits.

 

·         It was stated that less than half the bids for the LSTP funding had been successful.  The Transportation Manager commented on the guidelines for submitting bids and the indication that bids for supporting existing services would not have been acceptable. 

 

·         It was noted that the Sustainable Transport grant was ring-fenced and could not be used, for example, to support the subsidy to the bus network.

 

·         That congestion was the biggest problem the City faced and this had not been addressed during the life of the LTP and would not be addressed by current proposals.  In response the Cabinet Member drew attention to expenditure of £2.69m on the Connect 2 project and £350k under the Sustrans grant.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That:   (a)     the Economic Development Strategy be agreed for           recommendation to Council;

(b)       the principles of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy Revised Preferred Option for the purposes of consultation, including the plan period be approved;

(c)       the Leader of the Council, in association with the relevant Cabinet Members, leads a dialogue with local MPs, Group Leaders and key business leaders, prior to agreeing the final proposition to be put to the public during consultation;

(d)       a further report be received in September to agree the final arrangements for consultation including wording of the community poll;

(e)       the implications for the Local Development Framework timetable as set out in Appendix 2 (paragraph 40) to the report be noted;

(f)        an all Member briefing on the consultation process be arranged prior to it commencing;

(g)       the preparation of a Community Infrastructure Levy charging schedule (to be informed by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee policy review of income generation) to support the delivery of required infrastructure within the Core Strategy be agreed; and

(h)       the critical linkages between the adoption of the Local Transport Plan 3 and the Local Development Framework Strategy and the outcome of consultation on the Hereford Relief Road be noted.