Agenda item

Resolved that the recommendations below (as set out in the report) be agreed:

Council resolves that:

(1)              the schedule of post-examination proposed focused changes to the submission Core Strategy are published in accordance with Regulation 30 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Amendment Regulations 2008 for a six week period of consultation;

(2)              Delegated authority is given to the Head of Planning and Countryside, in consultation with the Portfolio Member for Planning and Housing, to agree any non-material supporting documentation and any other non-material refinements to the policy wording before consultation;

(3)              The Council disagrees with the ‘Proposed Inspector Change’ to Policy CS16 (Sustainable Construction and Energy Efficiency) and will so inform the Inspector during the consultation period. The Council strongly recommends Policy CS16 to remain substantially unchanged.

Note: The six week consultation period will start on Friday, 4 February 2011 and forms can be obtained from Reception at the Council Offices, Market Street, Newbury, from local libraries or completed on-line. A link will be available to the consultation page from the front page of the Council’s website on 4 February.

(Councillor Emma Webster declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda item 3 by virtue of the fact that her employer was undertaking a consultation exercise on the Newbury Racecourse Development. As her interest was personal and prejudicial she left the meeting and took no part in the debate or voting on the matter).

(Councillor David Rendel declared a personal interest in Agenda item 3 by virtue of the fact that he was a member of the Campaign for Rural England. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Councillor Julian Swift-Hook declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda item 3 by virtue of the fact that he was the Ward Member for Greenham and had publicly expressed objections to development on the Sandleford site. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Councillor Roger Hunneman declared a personal interest in Agenda item 3 by virtue of the fact that he lived immediately adjacent to the Sandleford site. Councillor Hunneman determined that his interest was personal and not prejudicial he would remain in the chamber and take part in the debate and vote on this item. If however a specific discussion on the Sandleford site was entered into he would absent himself from the chamber and not take any further part in the debate or vote on the item).

Councillor Emma Webster left the meeting at 7.04pm.

The Council considered a report (Agenda Item 3) concerning focused changes to the Core strategy following the additional work that was undertaken following the suspension of the Examination in Public in November 2010

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Alan Law and seconded by Councillor Paul Bryant:

 “That Council Resolves that:

1. the schedule of post-examination proposed focused changes to the submission Core Strategy are published in accordance with Regulation 30 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Amendment regulations 2008 for a 6 week period of consultation.

 2. Delegated authority is given to the Head of Planning and Countryside in consultation with the Portfolio member for Planning and Housing to agree any non-material supporting documentation and any other non-material refinements to the policy wording before consultation.

3. The Council disagrees with the 'Proposed Inspector Change' to Policy CS16 (Sustainable Construction and Energy Efficiency) and will so inform the Inspector during the consultation period. The Council strongly recommends policy CS16 to remain substantially unchanged. ”.

Councillor Alan Law in introducing the item reported that the structure of the plan, spatial strategy (including the settlement hierarchy, the four spatial areas ,the two strategic sites and the revised affordable housing provision starting at five homes were not questioned by the inspector. This report had however been prepared as a response to the Inspector’s request to clarify a number of policies and to provide evidence to strengthen some of the Council’s policies. The main queries raised by the inspector were in respect of clarifying the Health and Safety Executive’s Nuclear Installations Inspectorate’s position in respect of AWE at Aldermaston and Burghfield, clarifying the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, justification of the overall housing numbers and ensuring that Pangbourne was either included in the section relating to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or the Eastern Urban Area. Clarity had also been sought on the scale of the six rural service centres and the Equestrian Policy had also been clarified and reinforced.

Councillor Alan Law noted that the Inspector had also been in contact with the Council and sought a change to policy CC16 which set out requirements relating to the Code for Sustainable Homes and BREEAM. Councillor Law explained this ‘Proposed Inspector Change’ was discretionary and he urged the Council not to acquiesce to this proposal in line with the third recommendation.

AMENDMENT: Proposed by Councillor Royce Longton and seconded by  Councillor Tony Vickers:

That  “Notwithstanding the recommendations in this report…this the Council undertake an independent and separate consultation on Sandleford Park…*”

Councillor Roger Hunneman left the chamber at 7.50pm.

After careful consideration the Monitoring Officer agreed that in accordance with paragraph 4.11.16 of the Council’s Constitution this amendment was not valid as it would undermine the Core Strategy. Gary Lugg explained that if this proposal was adopted the Council would have to withdraw its Core Strategy and restart the whole process of considering all the individual sites.

In accordance with Procedure Rule 4.15.2 it was requisitioned that the voting on the Motion be recorded. The names of those Members voting for, against and abstaining in respect of Recommendation 1 were read to the Council as follows:

FOR the Motion:

Councillors Barbara Alexander, Peter Argyle, Howard Bairstow, Pamela Bale, Jeff Beck, David Betts, Paul Bryant, Keith Chopping, Hilary Cole, Adrian Edwards, Geoff Findlay, Richard Crumly, Marcus Franks, David Goff, Manohar Gopal, Paul Hewer, David Holtby, Carol Jackson-Doerge, Mike Johnston, Graham Jones, Alan Law, Tony Linden, Gordon Lundie, Tim Metcalfe, Joe Mooney, Irene Neill, Graham Pask, Andrew Rowles, Anthony Stansfeld, Ieuan Tuck, Quentin Webb, Laszlo Zverko (32)

AGAINST the Motion:

Councillors Jeff Brooks, Billy Drummond, Royce Longton, Alan Macro, Gwen Mason, Gabrielle McGarvey, Robert Morgan, David Rendel, Julian Swift-Hook, Tony Vickers, Keith Woodhams (11)

ABSTAINED:

None

The names of those Members voting for, against and abstaining in respect of Recommendation 2 were read to the Council as follows:

FOR the Motion:

Councillors Barbara Alexander, Peter Argyle, Howard Bairstow, Pamela Bale, Jeff Beck, David Betts, Paul Bryant, Keith Chopping, Hilary Cole, Adrian Edwards, Geoff Findlay, Richard Crumly, Marcus Franks, David Goff, Manohar Gopal, Paul Hewer, David Holtby, Carol Jackson-Doerge, Mike Johnston, Graham Jones, Alan Law, Tony Linden, Gordon Lundie, Tim Metcalfe, Joe Mooney, Irene Neill, Graham Pask, Andrew Rowles, Anthony Stansfeld, Ieuan Tuck, Quentin Webb, Laszlo Zverko (32)

AGAINST the Motion:

Councillors Jeff Brooks, Billy Drummond, Royce Longton, Alan Macro, Gwen Mason, Gabrielle McGarvey, Robert Morgan, David Rendel, Julian Swift-Hook, Tony Vickers, Keith Woodhams (11)

ABSTAINED:

None

There was unanimous support in respect of Recommendation 3

The Motion was put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED.

Councillors Emma Webster and Roger Hunneman returned to the chamber at 7.55pm once the vote on this item had been concluded.