ACTION

34.     ORDER OF BUSINESS

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 4, the Panel agreed to the variation of the order of business that Agenda Item 5 be considered prior to Agenda Item 8 on the agenda.  This was in order to allow members of the public to make a statement in relation to this item.

35.     DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

During the course of the meeting, reference was made to the Local Development Framework Sites and Policies Development Plan.  Councillor Joe Blackham declared a Declaration Pecuniary Interest during this issue by virtue of his beneficial interest in Rivendell (including 3.98 acres of land to the rear) at Moorends and left the meeting.

36.     MINUTES OF THE MEETINGS HELD ON 3^RD SEPTEMBER, 2012

          RESOLVED that: -

The minutes of the Regeneration and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Panel Meeting held on 19^th November, 2012 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

37.     VERBAL REPORT FROM COUNCILLOR CYNTHIA RANSOME - CABINET MEMBER FOR COMMUNITIES; STREET SCENE; ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND RESOURCE RECOVERY (WASTE MANAGEMENT AND RECYCLING)

Following a briefing note that had been circulated to Panel Members, Councillor Cynthia Ransome attended the Panel to respond to questions regarding the key priorities and challenges within her area. 

One Member congratulated the good work of the enforcement teams and commented that members of the public needed to know more about what S215 orders are.

The Cabinet Member outlined that fly-tipping was a priority and that the team was doing as much as they can and that more people are reporting fly-tipping.

Regarding fines, it was noted that it was the courts role to collect the fines and that they kept the money although the Council kept the surcharge.  It was confirmed that support was provided to those on benefits in the form of being allowed additional time to pay but it was stressed that prosecutions were always made. 

There was a brief discussion about the progress regarding the PFI Project.  It was confirmed that the commissioning of the site is due to start in January 2015, with the plant operational in summer 2015 (July).

38.     REGENERATION AND ENVIRONMENT OVERVIEW AND           SCRUTINY PANEL WORK PLAN REPORT 2012/13

          Members received a report that updated them on progress with the work plan for 2012/13 and any updates from the last meeting on 3^rd September 2012.  As a live document the work plan allows the Panel to review it in order to develop and reprioritise items where necessary.

          The Panel was informed of some minor changes to the workplan including an extraordinary informal meeting on the 28^th February 2013, 10-1pm for the Panel to consider ‘How as a Council can we improve access to finance for developers to meet our housing target and to assist buyers to purchase their own homes within Doncaster?’  Further to circulation of the scoping form, there was a brief discussion about its contents.  One Member commented that although there was a clear objective about reaching our housing targets, it was important to consider the other side and ensure that it is not done at people’s expense and getting them further in debt and also challenging the pricing mechanism that operated in the Borough.  The Scrutiny Officer informed the Panel that these comments would be reflected in the scoping form.

          In view of the remainder of the work plan, the Panel were reminded of the Careers Advice and Guidance Review and that a further meeting would be taking place on the 11th February 2013.  Regarding the Panel meeting on the 18th March 2013, Members were informed that there would be the addition of 2 reports including Racecourse Management Company update and Assets/Building Land.

RESOLVED that the Panel:

(1).     Note and comment on the revised work plan including the extraordinary informal meeting on the 28^th February 2013, 10-1pm.

(2).     Note the Annex to Appendix A detailing outcomes and impacts of the Panel’s work.

(3)      Receive an update on activities undertaken since the meeting held on 19^th November 2012.

(4).     Note the correspondence between the Executive and the Regeneration and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Panel including the Work, Skills And Enterprise Programme Going Forward And Update On Opportunity Centres.

(5).     Note the minutes on the joint review being undertaken by members from the regeneration and environment and schools, children and young people ‘To Understand And Address Careers Advice And Guidance To Children And Young People Within Doncaster Pre And Post 16’.

(6).     Note the action points for the last Enterprising Doncaster meeting that was held on the 29^th October 2012.

(7).     Note the Qtr. 2 2012-2013 Performance Report as circulated to Members of the Regeneration and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Panel

39.     PUBLIC STATEMENTS

          There were two public statements made in relation to Item 8.

          Statement 1:  ‘Broad Axe Field is Green Belt & a Green Wedge.

It is good agricultural land, and is of archaeological interest.

However its defence lies with the regeneration of the centre of Doncaster.

We are not anti-development, or anti-progress.

We have the support of our local Councillors.

Namely

Deborah Hutchinson

Bill Mordue

Kevin Rodgers

We also have correspondence from Ed Miliband sharing our concerns, Brownfield sites are not used to their full potential.

We are your average voters.

This possibly is a once in a generation opportunity to transform the dereliction along the banks of the river and the canal in Doncaster, from Hexthorpe, to Wheatley.

If you adopt this document in its current format, you are denying the regeneration of Doncaster waterside, and contributing to urban sprawl, by plundering the Green Belt.

So what has happened?

This document implies the Green Belt is required because there is insufficient Brown Field Sites, in Doncaster.

It achieves this by disregarding the housing allocation from The Strategic Housing Land Assessment published in March 2011, for Site 215, the Flagship Waterside Development.

It argues there is now no market for flats/maisonettes/smaller properties on this site.

What’s significantly changed between, March 2011, and Nov 2012?

How was this verified?

Is it House Builder Federation policy?

Or is it just taken at face value?

So Site 215, the Flagship Waterside Development is reduced from 1550 housing units to 500 housing units.

This is a site currently in-debt to the public purse to the tune of £30m.

How can Broad Axe Field be saved?

1) Reinstate the full allowance of 1550 housing units to site 215, and disregard short term industry intervention.

2) Recognise within the document, the current 4000 empty properties in the borough. An empty property brought back into use, is just as effective as a newly constructed property.

It is a home.

3) The housing target for Doncaster comes from the RSS 2008. This document promoted a drive towards meeting new housing needs. For example a vision for increasing the supply of single bed / small accommodation to suit

a) An ageing population

b) A population of young single adults, currently living with parents.

c) Develop a type of property for first time family buyers.

This is exactly what the Sites and Policies document is now implying isn’t required!

If the RSS is now not valid the Core Strategy total needs to be reduced, by approx. 200 housing units per year.

Summary

Strategic Planning is about balance.

The annual housing target is very aspirational. Even the Independent Planning Inspector commented

‘The national & local economy is generally fragile at present. Mortgage finance is restricted and the annual target of 1230 dwellings may prove to be more aspirational than realistic, especially during the first 5 years.’

We believe there is no balance adopting a highly aspirational target, and then also to seek to restrict capacity on Brownfield sites.

This is a policy which generates the needless release of Green Belt land, and results in Urban Sprawl.

Doncaster requires the regeneration of its Waterside. This is something other towns and cities have embraced but Doncaster was slow to recognise.

Everywhere else such development ends being highly desirable.

Doncaster requires courage, determination, drive, and a commitment to deliver a better future.

It should promote regeneration, and provide a robust defence of the Green Belt.

Please save Broad Axe Field, and promote Doncaster’s central regeneration.’

Statement 2: ‘‘Regeneration’ is a word that to me means to bring back to life.  There are areas of Doncaster that have been left derelict which should be brought back to life not ignored because developers say they are more expensive to develop. 

The ‘environment’ is the surroundings or conditions in which a person, animal, or plant lives or operates.

Leaving Brownfield Sites neglected and allowing building on Green Belt ignores both regeneration and the environment.

Green belt Land is too precious to be used as a cheaper option and once lost its gone forever.’

40.     LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK SITES AND POLICIES DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

Members received a report providing them with an update on the Sites and Policies Development Plan Document and the timeline for formal approval process up to Full Council in March 2013. 

The report outlined the Local Development Framework Core Strategy which was adopted in 2012 and set the overall approach for planning policy (although does not identify individual development sites or contain detailed policies) and explains how the Sites and Polices Development Plan Document is intended to provide the finer grain of detail, building on the approach established by the Core Strategy.  It was summarised that the Local Government Act requires the approval of statutory planning policy to be a Full Council decision and that the formal decision to adopt the plan will be made after the Examination in Public (and subject to the inspector’s report finding the plan sound). 

Steve Butler, Planning Policy Manager (Natural Environment)

gave a presentation that outlined: -

·       The purpose of the report/presentation

·       What is the Local Development Framework?

·       Strategic Direction

·       What is the Sites and Polices Development Plan Document?

The presentation covered the following areas: -

·       Timescale

·       National Policy

·       Consultation

·       Key Issues

·       Employment Sites

·       Neighbourhood Planning

·       Housing Sites Not Proposed

Following the presentation, there was a lengthy debate about the Sites and Policies Development Plan Document and reasons for selecting Broad Axe Field as one of the sites being proposed for allocation.  Officers informed Members that an appropriate assessment criteria has been applied as part of the site selection process and, following extensive appraisal work and consultation, that Broad Axe Field had been identified as the most appropriate option on balance to propose for allocation, although it was noted that these are difficult decisions, as are all site options involving loss of countryside.

It was raised by one Member that Rossington Parish Council were looking to allocate an extra 600 houses, in addition to the Core Strategy, within their Neighbourhood Plan and it was questioned whether this allocation had been taken into account as it would negate the need for the Broad Axe site.  Officers responded that Rossington’s allocation was separate to the Main Urban Area growth range so this additional growth could not substitute the growth required at the Main Urban Area. The Core Strategy Inspector had advised that it would be more appropriate to go towards the top end of the range which was around 64% mark; this has been reinforced by national policy.

There was a debate in relation to what account had been taken of environmental issues such as flooding.  The discussion included clarification of what the different types of flood risk are, whether sites at risk of flooding are attractive to developers (including mitigation measures/working with the Environment Agency) and whether purchases will be able to obtain affordable insurance.

There was a further discussion about what alternatives to Broad Axe Field had been considered.  The Planning Manager (Natural Environment) explained to Members that all the sites had been assessed in accordance with the criteria which included brownfield sites and greenfield sites.

One Member commented that certain sites had been taken out due to public opposition and enquired how this balances out with Broad Axe Field.  It was responded that the views as Officers was that the plan without an allocation towards the upper end of the main urban area growth range, which would require an urban extension site, would be a high risk strategy to take forward and defend in the examination in public Alternatives had been reviewed and the views of the public have tried to be reflected as far as possible.  It was emphasised that, given the discussion around the need to allocate towards the top of the growth range for the main urban area, it had been necessary to choose a site to go forward, although Officers have recognised the public opposition in choosing the Broad Axe Field site.

Officers advised Members that without an agreed plan, it could delay matters up to two years and would have significant consequences such as a negative impact on Doncaster’s economy.  Members were also made aware that there could be a situation that if the plan was deemed ‘unsound’ then Doncaster MBC would lose control over which sites do and do not come forward. House builders would be able to apply for any development site and increase the threat of wider development across the Borough, including loss of countryside. 

Members stated that in the event that house builders started to apply for developments outside of the Council’s plan then they would challenge the planning application.  Officers reiterated the need to have a sound plan, and without one the process would be delayed and with no plan, any impact of challenge to an appeal would be reduced.

There was a brief discussion about an alternative extension site to the main urban area where existing high voltage overhead power lines are a constraint. It was asked if the option of the cables being buried could be investigated, and would this be a viable solution? Officers explained that any developments are usually built around them, with appropriate buffers, as the cost to bury such infrastructure is very expensive.  It was noted that adding further constraints to house builders could potentially make sites unattractive, but that further talks could be carried out through links with house builders to look at the associated costs. Some Members recognised however that the sinking of cables may not have backing from the utility companies.  An example of this was raised by a Member regarding a development site at Armthorpe where significant investment has already been made on overhead cables and it therefore unlikely that more money would be spent to now bury them.

A question was raised by a Member as to why Broad Axe Field was classed as being part of the main urban area.  Officers explained that it is one of a number of sites that adjoins the main urban area as defined in the Core Strategy.   It was noted that it was not appropriate to place everything in the main urban area and Officers advised that the Core Strategy was adopted by Full Council last year which sets out the appropriate amounts of housing across the borough.    

There was a discussion around boundaries and it was queried whether they could be redrawn.  Officers explained that the boundaries that had been defined as part of the Core Strategy were created following a 3 to 4 year process, and based on the settlement study evidence base which identified the best locations for locating new housing, but would be reviewed on a regular basis. 

There was a further conversation about the detail of what dwelling types have been proposed to make up the units that will be built.  Officers explained that there is a policy in the Core Strategy to deliver a mix of house types based on the housing need evidence base.  It was noted that, in the current market, higher density flat and apartment schemes are not viable, for example the Waterfront development, so an element of discounting has been required.

In relation to off road parking, it was commented by a member of the Panel that many new build developments only have enough space for one vehicle per house Officers responded that they would revisit residential parking standards to consider the points that had been raised. 

An opportunity was provided to non-Panel members to address the group and Councillor Bill Mordue raised his concerns in respect to the number of brownfield sites which have not yet been developed and that there is an unrealistic housing target when, on average, Doncaster has only built 850 new homes a year for the past 15 years. The other extension sites to the main urban area identified on the plan were never realistic alternatives and were simply put forward as “unnecessary scaremongering”. It was also felt that no public views had been taken into consideration and the plans were being developer led.  Councillor Bill Mordue informed the Panel that it was his opinion that Recommendation (C) should not be accepted and that a full archaeological survey needs to be carried out on Broad Axe Field if this site continues to be put forward.

Councillor Bill Mordue also raised concerns from Councillor Kevin Rodgers relating to surface water flooding issues on Broad Axe Field following floods that occurred in 2007 and recent flooding on the A638.

Members of public were allowed to address the Panel at this point.  Concerns were raised in relation to housing targets which had derived from the Regional Spatial Strategy (adopted in 2007) at a time remembered as ‘boom times’.  It was also recalled that the last time the housing completions in Doncaster reached anywhere near the current annual target was 1999/2000 when 1100 were built; this was when the Gross Domestic Product rate was 5%. It was the opinion that this would not be experienced for a few years.  Another member of the public expressed their support for a controlled and structured approach but felt that the level of opposition to the Broad Axe Field site spoke for itself. 

A query was made about the growth range percentage that would be left if the Broad Axe Field site was omitted from the calculations.  Officers responded that without this site the target would reach approximately 57% which, based on the advice from the Inspector, would be short of the target of 64%.  The group was advised that a plan with below 60%, and made up mostly of brownfield sites, would make it more difficult for the plan to be found sound.  

Concerns were also raised from members of the public regarding how much more traffic would come down Stanley Road/Barnsley Road which was already considered as treacherous.  Regarding traffic, an officer responded that consideration would be given to ensuring reasonable safeguards are put in place.

Other areas that were raised during the discussions included: -

·       How and who sets the housing targets

·       Whose responsibility is it to pick up the cost of infrastructure?

·       Empty properties

Assistant Director of Development (Regeneration)

Head of Strategy & Programmes

RESOLVED that the Panel

1)       note the proposed responses to the main points raised from the consultation as set out in Appendix 1;

2)       note the proposed amendments in relation to housing and employment sites as set out in Appendix 2 with the exception of Broad Axe Field; and

3)       Reject the approach to Full Council approval, including the items for which delegated authority will be sought.