Agenda and minutes

To sign as a correct record the notes of the meeting of the South East Lincolnshire Joint Strategic Planning Committee meeting held on 25 January 2013 (copy enclosed).

The minutes of the meeting held on 25 January 2013 were signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

To seek approval of the Preferred Options version for the purpose of public consultation.  (Report of the South East Lincolnshire Joint Policy Unit Manager previously enclosed.)  (Appendix previously enclosed.)

(Additionally enclosed are two outstanding preferred policy approaches dealing with housing matters – labelled as Appendix 2 and Appendix 3.)

Consideration was given to the report of the South East Lincolnshire Joint Policy Unit Manager which sought approval from the Committee of the Preferred Options version of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document, for the purpose of public consultation.

The following issues were raised:

Section 2 (Spatial Portrait)

·        2.3 – Members questioned whether the first sentence, which stated that the main watercourses were tidal, was correct.  It was agreed that the sentence should be amended slightly, replacing ‘are tidal’ to ‘have tidal influences’.

·        General concern was expressed about the need to be careful about the wording of the Portrait in order that it sets the correct ‘tone’.

·        2.6 – Reference to passenger transport to locations outside the Plan area being mainly by rail was not accurate as there was a significant role played by bus transport.  It was agreed that this paragraph would be revised to reflect this situation.

Section 6 (Housing) 

·        Table 6.5 (Service villages) – Why was Fosdyke not included in this list as the local parish council wanted some growth? Officers referred back to the Spatial Strategy discussed at the last meeting and advised that concern at its non-inclusion could be addressed through questions as part of the public consultation.

·        Table 6.5 (Service villages) – Why was Algakirk proposed when Fosdyke was not?  Officers commented that some smaller villages had been included as there was less risk of coastal flooding.

·        It was noted that Butterwick was missing from Table 6.5.

·        Table 6.11 (Service villages) – Why was Deeping St Nicholas still included in the table?  Officers indicated that its inclusion had been previously agreed by Members but again advised that the issue of inclusion or otherwise could be addressed as part of the public consultation process.

·        With regard to the emphasis being placed on Spalding to deliver the Spalding Western Relief Road, concern was expressed about the reliance being placed on housing growth in Spalding to fund the proposed Spalding Western Relief Road (SWRR) and that the Planning Inspectorate might decide that we would be unable to deliver the road Officers commented that final costings were not yet known and that the preparation of the preferred route of the SWRR was still a work in progress.  The SWRR was viewed as a critical piece of infrastructure to support Spalding’s growth.

·        Members recognised that the increased downtime of level crossings resulting from the upgrade of the Joint Line posed a risk for Spalding and also an issue for the emergency services.  However, there was no guarantee that the SWRR would be delivered, and it was a high risk strategy to rely upon it. Officers commented that they recognised an element of risk in securing adequate funding for the SWRR but were working closely with Lincolnshire County Council in seeking to develop a sound proposal.

·        Officers indicated that their preference for accommodating housing development in the proposed Service Villages was Option A in Boston Borough (6.17.5) and Option A in South Holland District  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

To seek approval of the Preferred Options Consultation Strategy.  (Report of the South East Lincolnshire Joint Policy Unit Manager enclosed.)  (Appendix enclosed.)

Consideration was given to the report of the South East Lincolnshire Joint Policy Unit Manager, which sought approval for the Preferred Options Consultation Strategy.  The following comments were made:

·        Abbreviations contained within the document should be explained in a glossary.

·        Officers should be congratulated on reducing the size of the document.

·        The front cover of the document needed to be more interesting to encourage people to read it.

·        Officers advised that as part of the consultation, there would be permanent exhibitions in Boston and Spalding, with notification being given of when officers would be available to assist members of the public.</AI3>

<AI4>

To make Members aware of the IDP Baseline Report.  (Report of the South East Lincolnshire Joint Policy Unit Manager enclosed.)

Consideration was given to the report of the South East Lincolnshire Joint Policy Unit Manager which informed members of the Infrastructure Deliver Plan Baseline Report.  The following issues were raised:

·        Members noted that it was important that the content was correct – factual inaccuracies had to be addressed to provide a document in which the public could have confidence. Particular comments included:

o                 Appendix A: Para 2.1: In the second line, it was agreed to replace the word ‘promote’ with ‘support’.

o                 Appendix A: Para 2.8: In the  second sentence, the use of the word ‘poor’ in relation to public transport was considered too loose.

o                 Appendix A: Para 3.5: In the past, the use of temporary buildings to accommodate extra capacity had been allowed.  It should be made clear that this should not be encouraged in the future.

·        Members noted the difficulty in appreciating the concept of an IDP in the absence of a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). It was difficult to understand how you can plan to have an IDP, which by its nature ‘is bigger than a development’, unless you know how you can acquire the funds required to deliver the infrastructure. For example, there was concern that renewable energy was considered to be a major player in delivering the IDP. How can you deliver such infrastructure if you don’t know if the funds are available to do so.

·        Para 2.5:  Members questioned whether Western Power was the provider; and also voiced disappointment that discussions with it  were not more advanced. This needed to be pursued.  The officer responded that the reference to the provider was incorrect and would be amended and that he was in touch with them regarding progress.

·        Appendix 1 (IDP Action Plan): Members questioned why the emphasis was on the capacities of treatment works at Boston and Spalding and there being no reference to such facilities in other settlements.

·        Appendix 1 (IDP Action Plan): Members noted  that the list of infrastructure considerations was very long and queried how new housing developments could be adequately supported by appropriate infrastructure given the cost of such provision, particularly in smaller settlements.

To be confirmed.

It was agreed that the next meeting should be held in late July.  A report on the public consultation would be considered at this meeting.