29 11 2005

The Mayor (Councillor Burgess)(ex-officio), Chairman of the Policy and Organisation Board (Councillor Hook)(ex-officio) (P), Councillors Mrs Binfield (P), Davis (P), Jacobs, Langdon (P), Philpott (P) and Mrs Salter (P).

 

It was reported that, in accordance with Standing Orders, Councillor Taylor had been nominated to attend this meeting in place of Councillor Jacobs.

 

 

 

 

Apologies for absence had been received from The Mayor (Councillor Burgess) and Councillor Jacobs.

 

 

 

 

RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the Transportation and Planning Sub-Board meeting held on 4 October 2005 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a true and correct record.

 

 

To

GOSPORT BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN REVIEW: PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS

 

 

Consideration was given to a report of the Development Services Manager (a copy of which is affixed in the Minute Book as Appendix ‘A’), which presented to Members the Proposed Modifications to the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review with a view to publication for consultation purposes.

 

Members were advised that the next stage in the process in taking the Borough Local Plan Review forward to adoption was the preparation of Proposed Modifications, which would principally reflect the recommendations contained in the Inspector’s report. This would also include the incorporation of the Pre-Inquiry Changes supported by the Inspector and some updating of the text to reflect changes since June 2004 when the Revised Deposit version of the Plan Review had been published. The few cases where the Council had not agreed with the Inspector’s findings had been set out in the separate schedule entitled ‘Statement of Decisions and Reasons’, which provided a guide to all the Inspector’s recommendations.

 

Members were advised that the publication of the Proposed Modifications to the Local Plan Review was an important stage towards the end of the Plan preparation process. The Planning Inspector had supported the general content of the Borough Local Plan Review and therefore the Modifications were generally limited in content.

 

Members were requested to support the Proposed Modifications to allow their publication for consultation to be expedited in accordance with the approved Local Development Scheme.

 

In addition to the recommendations contained in the Development Services Manager’s report, Members agreed that officers should proceed with the statutory process to take the Borough Local Plan Review forward.

 

RESOLVED: That:

 

 

i)

Approval be given to the Proposed Modifications to the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review (Appendix A of the Development Services Manager’s report) and their subsequent publication for consultation purposes in accordance with the approved Local Development Scheme at a price of £7.50 to Gosport residents and businesses and £15.00 to other purchasers;

 

 

ii)

the Proposed Modifications be adopted for Development Control purposes;

 

 

iii)

the Statement of Decisions and Reasons (Appendix B of the Development Services Manager’s report) be approved; and

 

 

iv)

officers proceed with the statutory process to take the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review forward.

 

 

10

HAMPSHIRE MINERALS AND WASTE DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK: STRATEGY – ISSUES AND PREFERRED OPTION: CONSULTATION DOCUMENT

 

 

Consideration was given to a report of the Development Services Manager (a copy of which is affixed in the Minute Book as Appendix ‘B’) summarising the contents of the consultation Issues and Preferred Option document, which formed part of the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework. The report set out a proposed response on behalf of Gosport Borough Council.

 

Members were advised that the future planning for mineral and waste management was an important aspect of the development process and it was essential that the Borough Council be involved as an active consultee in the plan preparation process.

 

Future planning of minerals and waste management would contain a renewed emphasis on sustainable policies with an imperative need both to minimise the production of waste and to increase the use of recycled materials in construction rather than to use increasingly scarce primary resources. Members were asked to support the general approach in the document subject to the proposed response set out in Section 3 of the Development Services Manager’s report.

 

The letter of consultation had referred to the identification of sites for waste management and invited consultees to nominate sites. Officers advised that insufficient information had been received as to the type of sites that would be appropriate and, should any eventually be identified, they would be likely to be contained on land owned by the Ministry of Defence. Officers proposed that Gosport Borough Council not nominate any sites for consideration at this stage of the Local Development Framework preparation process.

 

Members raised concerns regarding the disposal of refrigerators and other domestic appliances and officers undertook to raise this issue with the Waste Management Authority.

 

RESOLVED:  That Hampshire County Council, Portsmouth City Council and Southampton City Council be thanked for the opportunity to comment on the consultation document and that Gosport Borough Council had the following comments on ‘Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework: Strategy Issues and Preferred Option’:

 

 

i)

the general approach in the Issues and Preferred Option document to minimise waste and maximise the use of recycled materials be supported;

 

 

ii)

the response to those questions in the Response Form on which the Borough Council had a view were set out as in Section 3 of the Development Services Manager’s report; and

 

 

iii)

Gosport Borough Council did not wish to nominate any sites for waste management purposes in response to the consultation.

 

 

 

 

Consideration was given to a report of the Development Services Manager (a copy of which is affixed in the Minutes Book as Appendix ‘C’), which sought approval of responses to a request from Hampshire County Council to provide comments on the Provisional Local Transport Plan.

 

Members were advised that the Plan was a comprehensive document which acknowledged the problems of access to the Fareham and Gosport peninsula arising from its geography, limited local employment and development growth but understated the degree of congestion and its effect upon the local economy and quality of life.

 

Members were advised that the plan provided an acceptable five-year strategy for the peninsula, which focused on improving accessibility, reducing congestion and improving air quality.  The strategy included support for local junction improvements and promoting public transport, which should all be welcomed.  Significant funding had been provisionally allocated in the plan specifically to improve access to Gosport within the five-year programme, however this may not be sufficient to address the high priority schemes.   The need to provide alternative transport in the event of the failure of LRT was not adequately addressed and a review of the programme and funding priorities would be necessary. 

 

Officers were concerned that the substantial development proposed in the emerging South East Plan would overwhelm existing transport infrastructure and would not achieve the desired economic objectives.  This development should only proceed if it were viable to address existing transport deficits, particularly in respect of the M27, and provide a multi-modal transport system that would adequately support sustainable development.  These transport proposals would need to be properly co-ordinated with local transport planning and accordingly the County Council had acknowledged that the Solent Area Strategy would need to be amended to take into account the size and location of new development and the resulting needs for new transport provision.  A review of the investment priorities across Hampshire would also be appropriate.

 

Officers recommended that the detailed comments in Section 2.0 of the Development Services Manager’s report be submitted to the County Council with a request that the full Local Transport Plan be reviewed in the light of these comments and be revised accordingly.

 

Members raised the issue of the Light Rail Transit in view of the Government decision not to proceed with this project. It was felt that the Local Transport Plan should take account of this decision. It was agreed that the funding and promotion of attractive and effective alternative forms of public transport should become a County priority within the full Local Transport Plan. The provision of the Stubbington Bypass should also become a priority in its own right in the Plan.

 

Members were concerned that, despite a meeting with officers and an invitation to meet again to discuss bus services in Gosport, the bus company had so far failed to respond on this issue.  Officers would be contacting the Chief Executive (nationally) of the bus company to enquire why no response had been received.

 

Members were advised of the Access to the Peninsula Panel and the importance of Gosport Borough Council representation at the next meeting to be held on 16 December 2005.

 

RESOLVED:  That:

 

 

i)

the comments on the Local Transport Plan contained in Section 2.0 of the Development Services Manager’s report be submitted to Hampshire County Council, subject to minor amendments by officers to reflect the Government’s decision not to reinstate funding for the Light Rail Transit (LRT) project;

 

 

ii)

in view of the LRT decision, Hampshire County Council be advised that the full Local Transport Plan should include as high priorities:

 

a)     the identification and promotion of attractive and effective alternative forms of public transport; and

 

b)     the promotion of the Stubbington Bypass in its own right to address existing transport difficulties;

 

 

iii)

Hampshire County Council be requested to include the improvement of the Salterns Lane / Gosport Road junction in the 2006/7 Local Transport Plan programme.

 

 

12

ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT

 

 

Consideration was given to a report of the Development Services Manager (a copy of which is affixed in the Minutes Book as Appendix ‘D’), which presented to Members the first Annual Monitoring Report for the period April 2004 to March 2005 for submission to Government by December 2005 in accordance with the Borough Local Development Scheme.

 

Members were advised that the Annual Monitoring Report was a useful document, requiring the assembly of data and information which could then be used to provide the evidence base to inform the Development Plan preparation process. The Report had been prepared in accordance with Government guidance and was considered to be ready for submission to the Government Office, subject to the possible inclusion of amended figures and other minor changes.

 

Members agreed that, in view of the recent Government decision that the Light Rail Transit (LRT) project not proceed, reference to the route of the LRT should be deleted from the Annual Monitoring Report.

 

RESOLVED: That:

 

i)

the Annual Monitoring Report for submission to Government be approved in order to meet the requirements of the 2004 Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act;

 

ii)

a charge of £7.50 be approved for hard copies of the Annual Monitoring Report;

 

iii)

Approval be given to the delegation of responsibility to the Head of Forward Planning for possible minor changes to the Annual Monitoring Report (including updating of figures or other data) in the period between Sub-Board approval and formal submission to Government; and

 

iv)

reference to the route of the Light Rail Transit in the Annual Monitoring Report be deleted.