Agenda item

·        In accordance with Cabinet Procedure Rule 2.4, Mr Craig Jackson asked the following questions:

Bearing in mind the Localism Act 2011, can you tell me what the latest advice is to councillors, especially those on the Planning Committee, with regards to the pre-determination of planning applications?

The Leader stated that all councillors on the Planning Committee had been advised of information detailed within the Localism Act.  All councillors were aware that they had to approach each planning application with a clear mind and be open to the evidence presented to them.

The Monitoring Officer advised that information had been presented to the Planning Committee in January 2012, providing guidance on the information detailed within the Localism Act. She advised that Mr Jackson would be provided with a copy of this guidance after the meeting.

In relation to clarifying the rules on predetermination, the publication ‘A plain English guide to the Localism Act’ states the following:

‘In parallel with the abolition of the Standards Board, the Government has used the Localism Act to clarify the rules on predetermination.  These rules were developed to ensure that councillors came to council discussions – on, for example, planning applications – with an open mind.  In practice, however, these rules had been interpreted in such a way as to reduce the quality of local debate and stifle valid discussion.  In some cases councillors were warned off doing such things as campaigning, talking with constituents, or publicly expressing views on local issues, for fear of being accused of bias or facing legal challenge.

The Localism Act makes it clear that it is proper for councillors to play an active part in local discussions, and that they should not be liable to legal challenge as a result.  This will help them better represent their constituents and enrich local democratic debate.  People can elect their councillor confident in the knowledge that they will be able to act on the issues they care about and have campaigned on.’

Why is that some so-called Independent District Councillors representing Sutton Bridge say that they are unable to comment or offer an opinion on planning applications when the Act has clarified how councillors can interact with their constituents on these issues?

The Leader responded that this was not an appropriate issue for the Cabinet to answer.  He reiterated that members had to go to debates regarding planning applications with an open mind, and the fact that members may express opinions prior to a debate could lead to legal challenge.  Councillors could actively lead campaigns but had to be mindful of the pre-determination issue.  Mr Jackson would need to speak to the relevant councillors to find out why they were not commenting on the application.   

Do you support your economic development policies relating to the Wingland Enterprise Park (Chapter 5 – Policy EC1 – on major employment areas – sites allocated for employment use)?

Paragraph 5.14 states – Currently, employment development on this site is expected to be confined to Classes B1, B2 and B8 and only in exceptional circumstances will other employment types which do not fall within these categories be considered, and only if they are appropriate and would not prejudice the supply of B1, B2 and B8 development land.  Any such proposals would in particular be considered in terms of their sustainability, employment generation, contribution to the local economy, impact on the environment and impact on vitality and viability of nearby centres.

The Leader responded that this was a question for the Planning Committee and not the Cabinet to answer.  The Cabinet did have a direct input to the Local Plan.  The Cabinet as a whole could not answer this question however, individual Portfolio Holders could where the issue fell within their remit.

Your policy also states that if those exceptional circumstances arose, it would be considered in terms of its sustainability, employment generation, contribution to the local economy, impact on the environment and impact on the vitality and viability of nearby centres.

The Leader responded that this was a question for the Planning Committee and not the Cabinet to answer. 

The proposed development at the Wingland Enterprise Park would result in an additional 120 plus HGV movements per day - do you not think that this poses a road safety risk at King John Bank which is completely unsuitable for this increased weight traffic, and when the bridge is open will increase congestion and exhaust emissions?

The Leader responded that this was a question for the Planning Committee and not the Cabinet to answer.  If concerns regarding road safety were substantiated, the Highways Department at Lincolnshire County Council would need to have regard to this.

King’s Lynn Borough Council has stated that there are currently no Air Quality Monitoring Zones in South Holland – is this correct?

The Portfolio Holder for Regulatory Services commented that he believed that there were two Air Quality Monitoring Stations within the South Holland area.  The Leader advised that this information had to be confirmed and that Mr Jackson would receive this information in due course.

(Following the meeting, the Portfolio Holder for Regulatory Services requested that a statement confirming the above information be attached as an appendix to these minutes).

Why were the former owners of the existing gas fired power station at Sutton Bridge allowed to buy themselves out of the planning condition that required them to provide the necessary infrastructure to provide electricity to the Wingland Enterprise site?

The Leader advised that any alteration to a S106 agreement was a Planning issue and not a Cabinet issue.  Although the recipient of the relevant amount within the S106 may change, the overall amount would remain the same.

What support is the District Council offering to parish councils that wish to establish Neighbourhood Plans?

The Leader advised that the Cabinet was generally in support of Neighbourhood Plans.  However, the plans were generally administered by the relevant communities and not by the Council.  He also commented that input into Neighbourhood Plans was always welcome and that with regard to Sutton Bridge specifically, ideas for suitable and unsuitable enterprises on the Wingland Enterprise Park would also be welcome.

·        In accordance with Cabinet Procedure Rule 2.4, Mrs Joan Houlder asked the following questions:

The Localism Act had been introduced to make the planning process clearer.  What weight was attached to the results of parish polls with regard to planning issues in light of the introduction of the Localism Act?

The Leader advised that the Localism Act had not been specifically introduced for planning, however, it should make the planning process more user-friendly and speed up planning applications.  Parish polls held no weight within the planning process, however, individual members may have regard to them.

Why did parish polls hold no weight within the planning process?

The Leader advised that this was not a local issue and was a question for the Secretary of State.

Was the Cabinet aware of the parish poll that had been held in Sutton Bridge which asked the question ‘Do you want a gasifier on the Wingland site?’ Was the outcome known?

The Leader advised that he was aware of the parish poll, that there had been a turnout of approximately 14%, with a handful of votes cast for the question and approximately 450 - 460 votes cast against the question.

Did the Cabinet recognise that this was a good turnout, bearing in mind that no poll cards were issued, that the poll was held in December and that the polls were only open for 5 hours?

The Leader advised that this was not a comparatively good turnout.  There  were significantly fewer objectors than for the scheme in Kings Lynn.

The Leader thanked Mr Jackson and Mrs Houlder for attending the meeting and raising their questions.  He stated that there were many routes through which the public could express their concerns on various issues and some of the issues raised at this meeting had not been appropriate for the Cabinet.  He suggested that the correct route to take would be to contact planning officers who would be able to deal with the objectors concerns either individually or as a group.