Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence and notices of appointment of substitute Members (if any).

Apologies were received from Cllr Mrs H Bainbridge, who was substituted by Cllr Mrs E J Slade, Cllr Mrs C P Daw, Cllr Mrs G Doe who was substituted by Cllr R Evans and from Cllr T G Hughes.  Cllr Mrs F J Colthorpe joined the Committee as a new Member.

To receive any questions relating to items on the Agenda from members of the public and replies thereto.

Note:   A maximum of 30 minutes is allowed for this item.

Mr K Grantham, referring to item 7 on the agenda and in particular the report that started on page 15 of the documents, said the recommendation is that ‘The report be noted’. Will Members please consider if we are not in a situation where that report and what it represents should be the subject of considerable scrutiny and further questions? Has the report addressed the real issues and why we are in this position?

Is there anything missing from the report which is not in the public domain? It goes from paragraph 4.2.2 to 4.4.  It then goes to a heading of 4.3 and then we have 4.5.1.  The report has an appendix 1 on pages 23 to 25 of your bundle.  Is that list of applications complete? I know of another application 17/01179/MFUL for 29 houses in Willand, which if added to the other two in appendix 1 and all are approved will increase the size of Willand by 21% with little or no improvement to infrastructure. The developers are ‘buying’ public green open space on existing sites which a MDDC report shows that Willand has a 64% shortage of under National Guidelines.  Are any other sites missing?

Under the heading Legal Implications you are advised about the 5 year land supply.  When the submission of the Local Plan Review was first delayed Willand Parish Council, at an open meeting of the Council, questioned Councillor Chesterton, the portfolio holder for Planning, if this delay would have any implications on the likely applications which were not planned for?  He assured us that officers were confident that the five year land supply was sound and so he was able to say that it would not be in jeopardy.  The Local Plan Review is again being delayed putting more areas of the District at risk of speculative applications.  Why were we misled? Who got it so wrong?  Who has been held to account?

Mr B Warren, also referring to item 7 on the agenda, and in particular some elements of the report presented said the report sets out risk assessmentunder paragraph 6 and then sets out some options under paragraph 7 mitigating measures.  Is there a hidden policy to try and let these speculative applications go through to try and ‘build their way out of trouble’?  Are certain communities being ‘sacrificed’ rather than show that major developments such as the 259 houses for Willand are likely to cause harm thereby negating the assumption under paragraph 14 of the NPPF? 

I ask this question as last Tuesday I attended an informal appeal hearing against the refusal of the 259 houses in Willand.  Most of the reasons for refusal were provided by Devon County Council on traffic matters. The appellants were represented by a barrister, planning consultant and traffic management consultant with two support staff.  They had also submitted a 359 page statement of their case.  In contrast MDDC were represented by a part time Area Team Leader Planning Officer supported by a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63.

An opportunity for non-Cabinet Members to raise issues.

Cllr T W Snow highlighted that despite having asked that the Minutes of the meeting held on 17^th July be amended, this amendment had not been made to the online Minutes.  The Monitoring Officer offered to look into this and would report back to the Cllr Snow and the Chairman.

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the last meeting of this Committee (attached).

The Committee is reminded that only those members of the Committee present at the previous meeting should vote and, in doing so, should be influenced only by seeking to ensure that the minutes are an accurate record.

The minutes of the last meeting were approved as a correct record and SIGNED by the Chairman.

To consider any decisions made by the Cabinet at its last meeting that have been called-in.

The Chairman informed the Committee that he had called in a decision made by the Cabinet at its meeting on 28^th September 2017 for consideration by the Scrutiny Committee in accordance with the Council’s Constitution.

The Chairman explained that he had taken this course of action because he felt that the Cabinet was inconsistent in its treatment of the Crediton Office in contrast to the disposal of Tiverton Town Hall (both acquisitions had been a result of the establishment of the Authority in 1974),  to the detriment of Crediton Town Council and its community.

The Chairman reminded the Committee that the result of the negotiations with Tiverton Town Council, as stated in the Minutes of the Cabinet of 5^th January, were that the Town Council agreed that they would purchase the Town Hall at a cost of £175k (half the price of the valuation), spreading the cost over a 6 year period with no interest payable.

He also informed the Committee that the recommendation by the Cabinet in respect of Crediton Office was:

1)    To dispose of the Crediton Office at the full market value (“thus providing an opportunity to maximise income and demonstrate value for money”)

2)    To notify the Land Charges service of the intention to sell the Crediton Office building and to inform the local community that the property had been registered as an asset of community value (with the risk “that the Town Council will be required to relocate”)

The Chairman added that there was no suggestion as to how that risk would be addressed or supported.

The Chairman said that ‘as I understand events, the previous Cabinet meeting of 31 August had before it an option that the building be offered to Crediton Town Council at half the then advised value on similar terms to Tiverton and that negotiations had been conducted with the Town Council to that effect, so much so that provision was made in the Crediton budget via an increased precept to meet the cost over a number of years, comparable to the Tiverton offer. However this potential outcome was deferred at the Cabinet meeting to allow for further information to be provided prior to a decision being made. Subsequently there was a modest increase in the advised valuation.  As a consequence, again as I understand, the Town Council was anxious that their asset could be potentially at risk and therefore applied for its recognition as an asset of community value. Why this application apparently lead to the termination of all previous discussions without the possibility of reaching a successful conclusion is unclear to me.  The Leader at the Cabinet meeting of 28^th September remarked that it changed the complexion of the negotiations, but did not give further explanation. Crediton Town Council would have wished to continue with negotiations. Certainly the Town Council would not have wanted to put any impediment in the way of achieving a successful outcome, irrespective of its resort to the safety net of an  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66.

To receive any announcements that the Chairman of Scrutiny Committee may wish to make.

The Chairman made reference to Strategic Thinking training for Members that had taken place the previous week and informed the Committee that the Chief Executive would be circulating the outcomes.  The Chairman informed the Committee that he had found the training to be very useful.

At the request of the Chairman the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration will provide an update on the position of the Council over 5 year housing land supply and any implications upon it of the recent deferment of Local Plan Review examination sessions. This report is an update to that provided in May 2016.

At the request of the Chairman the Committee had before it and NOTED a report * from the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration providing an update on the position of the Council over the 5 year housing land supply and any implications upon it of the recent deferment of Local Plan Review examination sessions.

The officer outlined the contents of the report, explaining that in respect of housing supply, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) required local planning authorities to identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 5% to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. Where there had been a record of persistent under delivery of housing, local planning authorities had to increase the buffer to 20% to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply and to ensure choice and competition in the market for land.

The NPPF also advised that where a five year land supply of deliverable housing sites could not be demonstrated, policies on housing supply should not be considered up to date.

On 11^th April 2016, an appeal had been allowed for outline planning permission for 60 houses on approximately 3.5 hectares of agricultural land outside the defined settlement boundary of Uffculme which was not allocated for development. The main issue in determination of the appeal was whether, having regard to the development plan, the NPPF, the housing land supply of the Council and the scale and location of the development, the appeal scheme would constitute a sustainable form of development.

The officer explained that demonstrating supply was not just about housing numbers. Deliverability was key. To be considered deliverable, sites should be available, be a suitable location for development, be achievable (i.e. with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered within five years) and in particular that development was viable. Delivery was also important in the context of the record of delivering houses in years prior to the point of appeal.One of the ways that a local planning authority could seek to maintain a supply of deliverable sites was through granting planning permission.  The number of planning permissionsin the District was currently standing at its highest figure since 2002/03 and 1665 dwellings received planning permission (Monitoring Report Summary to 31^st March 2016). Whilst strategic sites had been slower to come forward than expected, this had been offset by the higher number of planning permissions granted overall. Despite this, average annual housing completions had not met the policy COR3 target of 390 or the FOAN target of 370. This lower rate of housing completion was to a large extent a result of factors outside the control of the Council such as the economy, the local housing market, the availability of development funding and commercial decision by housebuilders over permission implementation and build out rates. The Inspector acknowledged a recent dip in completions was a likely  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68.

To provide Members with an update on performance against the corporate plan and local service targets for 2017-18 as well as providing an update on the key business risks.

The Committee had before it and NOTED a report * from the Group Manager for Performance, Governance and Data Security providing Members with an update on performance against the Corporate Plan and local service targets for 2017-18 as well as providing an update on the key business risks.

The officer outlined the contents of the report.

Discussion took place regarding the number of empty shops in the Tiverton town centre.

Note: - Report * previously circulated and attached to Minutes.

To receive a verbal update from the AD Working Group, Partnership Working Group, Consultation Working Group and Homelessness Working Group.

The Chairman provided an update regarding the AD Working Group, informing Members that the Group had met on one occasion to date and that they had a further meeting planned for the following week.  He explained that the topic had been difficult to scope and that it did not include the slurry pit at Crossparks within its remit.

The Chairman also updated the Group on the Partnership Working Group which had been ongoing for a while.  He informed Members that the Group needed to reflect on the work undertaken so far and to consider what other areas to look at.

The Chairman of the Consultation Working Group informed the Committee that the consultation undertaken had gone well and that following a planned meeting when the Group would be looking at other consultation that had taken place in the last year, a report would be submitted.

The Chairman of the Homelessness Working Group informed the Committee that they had a meeting planned at which they would meet people that had used or were in the system.  They had learned that legislation was changing and that there would be an impact on the authority as a result of this.

Members are asked to consider any items within the Forward Plan that they may wish to bring forward for discussion at the next meeting.

The Committee had before it and NOTED the Cabinet Forward Plan *.

Members were advised that a briefing paper regarding the Tiverton Masterplan would be received at the next meeting.

Note: - Forward Plan * previously circulated and attached to Minutes.

Members are asked to note that the following items are already identified in the work programme for the next meeting:

Note: - this item is limited to 10 minutes. There should be no discussion on items raised.

Cabinet Member for Finance

Performance and Risk

Cabinet Member for Finance

Performance and Risk

Traveller Sites

Tiverton Masterplan update

DCC Care Homes – update

Strategic Thinking feedback