Agenda and minutes

The Chairman thanked the Vice-Chairman for attending a number of events for him while he was on holiday. The Chairman reported that he had been fortunate to attend the very well attended and organised Volunteer Centre’s recruitment fayre which had taken place the previous Sunday. The event had highlighted to him again the number and quality of volunteers that the district was very fortunate to have.  Later the same afternoon he had been fortunate enough to attend a wonderful celebration of the anniversary of the Queen’s coronation at St Mary’s Church in Reading.

There were no declarations of interest received.

To:

(a)       consider the outcome of the public consultation on the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule (PDCS);

(b)       seek approval for the publication of the Draft Charging Schedule (DCS) and supplemental documents for public consultation and subsequent submission for Examination in Public;

(c)       confirm authority for minor changes to the Draft Charging Schedule and supplemental documents prior to submission.

The Council considered a report (Agenda Item 4) concerning the outcome of the public consultation on the Preliminary Draft Schedule (PDCS) and sought approval to publish it alongside the supplemental documents for further public consultation prior to the Examination in Public. The report also sought to confirm authority to make minor amendments to the PDCS prior to submission.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Hilary Cole and seconded by Councillor Alan Law:

That the Council:

1.             “approves the statement of consultation for the PDCS.

2.             approves the publication of the Draft Charging Schedule and supporting documentation, and subsequent submission for Public Examination.

3.             Delegates non-material changes, as a result of the DCS consultation, but prior to submission for Examination to the Head of Planning in consultation with the Portfolio Member for Planning, Transport (Policy), Culture, Customer Services, and Countryside”.

In proposing the report Councillor Hilary Cole requested that a minor amendment be made to recommendation 3 to the report.

Minor AMENDMENT: Proposed by Councillor Hilary Cole and seconded by Councillor Alan Law:

That the Council:

“3.      delegates non-material changes, as a result of the DCS consultation, but prior to submission for Examination to the Head of Planning and Countryside in consultation with the Portfolio Member for Planning, Transport (Policy), Culture, Customer Services, and Countryside”.

It was agreed that the amendment be incorporated into the original motion and that this would then become the substantive motion.

Councillor Hilary Cole, in introducing the item, thanked all Members that had attended the recent training that had provided the necessary background to this report and the next agenda item. Councillor Cole also reported that, in accordance with the explanation provided to Members at the Annual Council meeting, the very lengthy appendices associated with this report had been provided to Members in electronic format although hard copies would be available on request.

Councillor Cole reported that the Community Infrastructure levy (CIL) was a new levy which had been introduced by the Coalition Government and would replace the Council’s highly successful s106 scheme. She was therefore reluctantly proposing that the Council adopt the scheme in accordance with the 01 April 2014 deadline. She thanked the previous Portfolio Holder, Councillor Keith Chopping, for the efforts he had put into trying to persuade the Secretary of State to allow the Council to retain the current s106 scheme. Unfortunately to date these endeavours had not met with any success.

Councillor Cole also thanked Officers, most notably Caroline Walsh, for all the effort that she had put into getting the scheme drafted.

Councillor Cole noted that CIL would be charged on a rate per m² on new developments of more than 100m² or where a new dwelling was created, even if it was smaller than the 100m² threshold. The funding had to be used to fund improvements and enhancement to the district’s infrastructure and would also be used for funding the costs associated with administering the scheme. The payments were not negotiable and severe penalties could be imposed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

To seek Full Council approval for the adoption of the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) for Developer Contributions.

The Council considered a report (Agenda Item 5) concerning approval for the adoption of the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) for Developer Contributions.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Hilary Cole and seconded by Councillor Paul Bryant:

That the Council:

1.              “approves the consultation responses and resultant amendments to the SPD, and adopts the SPD for developer contributions, to replace the current SPG04/4.  The adopted SPD will apply to any applications submitted and appeals considered on or after 1st July 2013.

2.              confirms delegated authority for non-material amendments to the adopted SPD to the Head of Planning in agreement with the Portfolio Member for Planning, Transport (Policy), Culture, Customer Services, and Countryside”.

In proposing the report Councillor Hilary Cole requested that a minor amendment be made to recommendation 2 to the report.

Minor AMENDMENT: Proposed by Councillor Hilary Cole and seconded by Councillor Paul Bryant:

That the Council:

“2.  confirms delegated authority for non-material amendments to the adopted SPD to the Head of Planning and Countrysidein agreement with the Portfolio Member for Planning, Transport (Policy), Culture, Customer Services, and Countryside.”

It was agreed that the amendment be incorporated into the original motion and that this would then become the substantive motion.

Councillor Hilary Cole noted the report sought authority to update the Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) so that it could be replaced as a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). The updates took cognisance of new occupancy levels, changes in local and national planning policies and revised costs to service units.

Approval was sought at the 14 February 2013 Executive meeting to go out to consultation for a six week period (15 February 2013 to 02 April 2013). A total of 40 consultation responses were received and amendments were subsequently made to the SPD as appropriate.  Councillor Cole asked Members to support the adoption of the SPD.

Councillor Keith Woodhams requested that if the implementation of CIL was to be delayed or deferred that this policy be brought back to Council to be reconsidered.

Councillor Gordon Lundie gave his assurance that the authority would continue to press Central Government about retaining the s106 model until all avenues had been exhausted.

(Councillor Manohar Gopal left the meeting at 7.39pm and returned at 7.40pm)

Councillor Paul Bryant noted that under the s106 model the document had been revised from time to time and he hoped that this process would be retained under the CIL model. Councillor Hilary Cole stated that the document would stay in place until CIL was implemented.

The Substantive Motion was put to the vote and declared CARRIED.

(Councillor David Rendel left the meeting at 7.40pm)

To provide an update from the task group.

The Council considered a report (Agenda Item 6) concerning an update from the task group that had been set up to consider the motion submitted to the December 2012 Council meeting.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Hilary Cole and seconded by Councillor Gordon Lundie:

That the Council:

“notes the report”.

In proposing the motion Councillor Cole requested that an amendment be made to the Recommended actions.

AMENDMENT: Proposed by Councillor  Hilary Cole and seconded by Councillor Gordon Lundie:

That the Council:

1.               “is requested to endorse the change to the last paragraph of the motion proposed by the Planning Policy Task Group to reflect the ‘market value of the site.’

2.               notes the report.”

The Amended Motion was put to the vote and declared CARRIED.

The Chairman announced that the amended motion would now be the Substantive Motion.

Councillor Hilary Cole in introducing the item reported that a motion pertaining to the future use of Greenham Control Tower had been brought to the December 2012 Council meeting. At the meeting the final paragraph of the motion had been amended to state that “Council applauds the initiative of Greenham Parish Council and notes its aim, which is to retain the control tower as a building for community use.”

The Chairman of the council had then referred the motion to the Planning Policy Task Group to progress. The Planning Policy Task Group had agreed with the majority of the motion but had in turn requested that the final paragraph be amended as follows: “This Council will therefore assist the Parish Council with achieving this aim, whilst having regard to the market value of the site”.

A sub group of the Planning Policy Task Group had been set up to establish the level of interest in the site. Five proposals had come forward as well as proposal for Swings and Smiles to use the site, although this had not proved to be feasible.

Greenham Parish Council approached the Council to lodge a request to acquire the control tower under the recently adopted Community Right to Bid scheme on the 11 April 2013. The notice that the asset would be disposed of was issued on the 06 March 2013 and the moratorium period would therefore end on the 07 September 2013.

Councillor Julian Swift-Hook lamented what he perceived to be a diminution of the original motion from applauding the Parish Council to agreeing to render assistance but with caveats attached. He felt that a refusal to sell the asset under the market value could be construed as profiteering. He reminded the Administration that the Council had acquired the site for £1 fifteen years ago on the basis that it would be an asset to be used for the good of the community. He felt that the proposal to sell the control tower on the open market was contrary to the spirit of the original agreement.

Members of the Opposition highlighted the need to retain the control tower in public ownership. Councillor Alan  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

To provide an update from the task group.

The Council considered a report (Agenda Item 7) concerning an update from the task group that had been set up to consider the motion that had been submitted to the December 2012 Council meeting.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Hilary Cole and seconded by Councillor Pamela Bale:

That the Council:

“notes the report”.

In introducing the report Councillor Cole noted that a task group had been set up to consider the options available for the site. Councillor Cole apologised to Councillor Swift-Hook that the report failed to mention that he was a member of the Task Group in his role as Ward Member. She noted that Councillor Swift-Hook had attended the inaugural meeting and had made a significant contribution for which she thanked him.

Councillor Cole explained that the task group had concluded that as the Council did not own the site there was little they could do to influence its future use except through the planning process. It was also noted that it was a listed monument and therefore fell within the remit of English Heritage which would in itself offer some protection.

Greenham Parish Council and Greenham Common Trust had stated that they would refer the matter back to their organisations to establish what if any action they could take. Councillor Cole did not feel that it would be worth meeting again without concrete options from these two groups. Councillor Julian Swift – Hook thanked Councillor Cole for setting up the task group and he reported that the meeting had been very successful. He therefore requested that the task group was not disbanded but that any future meetings should be deferred until they had some options to consider. Councillor Cole concurred with this proposal.

Councillor Bale reported that although she understood the value of the site, it was not within the Council’s ownership and that further information needed to be provided by interested parties before any action could be agreed.

The Motion was put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED.