Agenda, decisions and minutes
PDF 123 KBVenue: Webcasting - Virtual. View directions
Contact: Clare Rendell Email: c.rendell@somersetwestandtaunton.gov.uk
Webcast: View the webcast
| No. | Item | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Apologies
To receive any apologies for absence. Additional documents: Minutes: No apologies were received. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Minutes of the previous meeting of the Executive
To approve the minutes of the previous meeting of the Committee. Additional documents: Minutes: (Minutes of the meeting of the Executive held on 18 March 2020 circulated with the agenda)
During the discussion, the following points were made:- · Councillor G Wren queried: at the briefing to councillors prior to the acquisition of the bus station, it was made clear that the decision to close the bus station was made by First Bus alone for their own commercial reasons. However, at Scrutiny Committee on 20 May 2020, the Southwest Director of First Bus, Mr Alex Carter, stated that negotiations for the acquisition had included a facility for First Bus to leaseback the bus station for a period of time. However, as the completion date neared, the offer of a lease was withdrawn by the Council. Could the Portfolio Holder please clarify if a leaseback arrangement was part of the negotiations and if so, why it was withdrawn at the last minute? The Portfolio Holder advised that the initial approach to purchase the bus station was made by First Bus Group as they had already made the decision to close the bus station and wondered if Somerset West and Taunton Council (SWT) would be interested in purchasing the site. That was the initial contact that had been explained at the briefing. During the deal being finalised, discussions were had with Somerset County Council and further options were debated on whether SWT could lease back the site to First Bus Group. Due to the regulations on the building, it meant that only a short term lease could be granted to allow them to park their buses on site. The decision to close the bus station was that of First Bus Group. Another complication with the negotiations was that SWT felt pressure to conclude the deal by 31 March 2020, due to time constraints on First Bus financial year end. The final agreement was to lease back the site for 6 months to be used as a bus storage and driver layover facility. · Councillor B Weston requested sight of the written responses to questions raised by the public speakers about the Bus Station and alternative arrangements raised at the Executive meeting on 18 March 2020. The Portfolio Holder would arrange for the answers to be distributed to all Councillors. · Councillor B Weston also took the opportunity to ask a question about the pigeon nuisance and repeated installations of failed deterrents under Kingston Road Bridge. The Chief Executive advised from an operational stand point, the bridge was owned by the rail company, therefore, negotiations would always be required to apply any infrastructure on the bridge. Ordinarily, the Council would have carried out operation clean sweep two, which would involve a jet wash of the area amongst other work. However, due to the Covid Pandemic, the work had to be reprioritised and other work had been deemed to be more important during the lockdown period. The Portfolio Holder was happy to include the work in the project being undertaken to improve the layout and concourse of the railway station.
Resolved ... view the full minutes text for item 130. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Declarations of Interest
To receive and note any declarations of disclosable pecuniary or prejudicial or personal interests in respect of any matters included on the agenda for consideration at this meeting.
(The personal interests of Councillors and Clerks of Somerset County Council, Town or Parish Councils and other Local Authorities will automatically be recorded in the minutes.)
Additional documents: Minutes: Members present at the meeting declared the following personal interests in their capacity as a Councillor or Clerk of a County, Town or Parish Council or any other Local Authority:-
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Public Participation
The Chair to advise the Committee of any items on which members of the public have requested to speak and advise those members of the public present of the details of the Council’s public participation scheme.
For those members of the public who have submitted any questions or statements, please note, a three minute time limit applies to each speaker and you will be asked to speak before Councillors debate the issue.
Temporary measures during the Coronavirus Pandemic Due to the Government guidance on measures to reduce the transmission of coronavirus (COVID-19), we will holding meetings in a virtual manner which will be live webcast on our website. Members of the public will still be able to register to speak and ask questions, which will then be read out by the Governance and Democracy Case Manager during Public Question Time and will either be answered by the Chair of the Committee, or the relevant Portfolio Holder, or be followed up with a written response. Additional documents: Minutes: Mr Tony Laurence spoke on agenda item 7, Monkton Heathfield: SS1 Policy Area and MH2 Concept Plan and Design Principles. I am speaking in my capacity as Chair of the Conservation of West Monkton Society. Over the past three years, we have raised concerns with Councillors and officials about the impact on our community of proposed changes to highways connected with the Monkton Heathfield development - in particular the proposed bus-gate on the A3259, which, we believe, will lead through traffic to use local roads, including those through our village, as a rat-run and defeat the purpose of having the bus-gate. We have consistently been told that the installation of the bus-gate was a legal requirement arising from the section 106 agreement. So earlier this year, when Persimmon were consulting on traffic calming measures on the A3259, we took legal advice. The legal advice we received is that the proposal for the bus-gate was indicative only and that therefore there is and never has been a decision or legal or contractual requirement to install the bus-gate. Persimmon's consultation was therefore invalid. I conveyed this information to officers and Councillors of both Somerset County Council and Somerset West and Taunton Council in May. Despite this, para 4.31 of Mr Penna's summary paper for item 7 (SWT 83/20) states that the bus-gate is to go ahead because it is ' is required by legal agreements dating from the first phase of the Monkton scheme'. I am calling on the Council now to rescind this statement - or to justify it. We are asking for the proposal for the bus-gate to be re-considered along with the other proposed solutions to road and traffic issues as suggested at para 4.30 of the same paper. Thank you, Tony Laurance
The Portfolio Holder responded: The County who were responsible for the legal agreement and the bus gate had confirmed that the position set out in the Report was correct.
Mr Mark Besley spoke on agenda item 7, Monkton Heathfield: SS1 Policy Area and MH2 Concept Plan and Design Principles. The Parish Council supports the majority of the aims of the Concept Plan and Design Principles and has had positive engagement with the project lead from SWT. It is heartening to see that the plan has been changed following discussions on the first draft plan presented to the PC in January. There are however three points that I would like to make...... Firstly, the text of the Design Principles Section 9 states that ‘the existing A38 is to be retained for local traffic provision’ however later under ‘Potential positive interventions’ it states that ‘Consideration should be given to potential for part/total pedestrianisation of the current road subject to ensuring continued local road access to existing homes and businesses’. There is real concern that closing the A38 between the Langaller and Cricket Club roundabouts will result in high levels of local business traffic (including HGV’s) having to go through the District Centre. This is contra to the Garden ... view the full minutes text for item 132. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Executive Forward Plan
To receive items and review the Forward Plan. Additional documents: Minutes: (Copy of the Executive Forward Plan, circulated with the agenda).
The Governance Specialist advised the Committee that the Forward Plan had been updated after the agenda was published and gave details on what items were due to be on the agenda for the June meeting of the Executive.
Councillors were reminded that if they had an item they wanted to add to the agenda, that they should send their requests to the Governance Team.
Resolved that the Executive Forward Plan be noted. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wellington and Cullompton Railway Station Project: Phase 1 (Strategic Outline Business Case) - Approval of Project Governance Arrangements
This matter is the responsibility of Executive Councillor for Planning and Transportation, Councillor Mike Rigby.
The purpose of this report is to seek approval of the project governance arrangements for the first phase of this project, the Strategic Outlines Business Case (SOBC). This will establish clear lines of decision-making and reporting for the project going forward. Additional documents: Decision: Resolved that the Executive approved the governance arrangements set out in Appendix A. Minutes: During the discussion, the following points were raised:- · The Leader reminded the Committee that the discussion was on the governance arrangements. · Councillors were pleased to see the report coming forward and that progress was being made. · Councillors queried how often would the Project Board meet? Officers advised that not much had changed at the Steering Board level and that they would meet every 6 weeks. · Councillors supported the report and that it was a good project for the South West and the people of Wellington. · Councillors queried why the County Councils were not able to support the project financially. Wellington Town Council and the former Taunton Deane Borough Council had given money towards the project, but they queried why Somerset County Council (SCC) had pulled away from the project and were only a silent partner, even though they were the Transport Authority for the area. The Portfolio Holder agreed it was regrettable that the Transport Authority were not engaged in the project. However, it was indicative of the financial position that SCC were in. · Councillors queried how funds from the New Homes Bonus could be given to support the project and requested clarification on what New Homes Bonus could be spent on. Officers advised that New Homes Bonus could be spent on local infrastructure and gave clarification. · Councillors queried that the Project Board was the only place an elected councillor appeared in the process, even though Somerset West and Taunton Council were contributing financially. They further queried how often would information be fed back to Full Council and Scrutiny. The Portfolio Holder advised that he would be happy to attend Scrutiny to feedback information from the Project Board.
Resolved that the Executive approved the governance arrangements set out in Appendix A. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Monkton Heathfield: SS1 Policy Area and MH2 Concept Plan and Design Principles
This matter is the responsibility of Executive Councillor for Planning and Transportation, Councillor Mike Rigby.
The Report recommends publishing a Framework Plans for the SS1 area as a whole and a Concept Plan for the MH2 area for public consultation in order to provide developers, local residents and businesses the opportunity to comment on the draft proposals. The Framework Plan and Concept Plan closely follows Policy SS1 of the Core Strategy, showing indicatively, the disposition of the main land uses – land for new homes, new roads, employment areas, the bus and ride, a new through school, District Centre, open space and green infrastructure etc. Additional documents: Decision: Resolved that the Executive recommended that:- 1) The draft SS1 Policy area Framework Plan, the draft MH2 Concept Plan and the draft MH2 Design Guidance be published for public consultation; and 2) That the outcome of the public consultation, including any appropriate suggested amendments, be reported back to the Executive as soon as possible with a view to seek approval to adopt the Plans and Guidance for Development Management decision making purposes. Minutes: During the discussion, the following points were raised:- · Councillors were pleased to see the report and that it included work on sustainability and climate change. It was exciting to see a new site for generations to come and that developers had taken the report on board with carbon neutrality. · Councillors were committed to the report and agreed that the viability of residents should be taken into account. · Concern was raised that during MH1, local residents were not listened to during the consultation stage and Councillors did not want to repeat that with MH2. Councillors requested that if decisions were made against that of local feedback, they should be told why those decisions had been made. · Councillors queried how the strategies that had been introduced after MH1 would be included in MH2, for example, Garden Town and the New Design Guide. All strategies fed into the process, all material planning considerations and setting out the masterplan gave officers something to use for the proposals and in their judgement of the plans. Viability was still important within the planning consideration. · Councillors requested an update on the district centre in MH1 and what had happened and how the implementation would be improved in MH2. Officers highlighted that there were many reasons why the district centre had not been finished but agreed that it needed to be delivered in MH2. · Councillors queried whether housing orientation was included in the design. Officers advised that the District Design Guide advised on housing orientation. · Councillors queried the figures given on electric vehicle charging points and what was deemed as ‘significant’. The charging points were part of the product design and could be located in garages or on driveways, the figures were aspirations as this was a high level report, so more detailed figures would be given later on in the project. · Concern was raised on the chaos caused by the lack of parking near the school and whether the district centre would resolve that. Councillors were advised that the area allocated for parking had not been tarmacked and that planning officers had been in contact with the developers to find out what progress could be made. They also wanted to check that the contractors hadn’t breached any of the planning conditions. Councillors were advised that progress had been slow. · Councillors highlighted that other garden towns had been mentioned within the report, but that they wanted the project to be carried out based on local merits. Officers advised that the reference to garden towns was to illustrate that the Council could deliver quality spaces and bring forward MH2 as a garden community in a modern context. · Concern was raised on the lack of infrastructure in MH1 and who had been responsible for that. Clarification was given. · Councillors urged that the project needed design principles that would be delivered. Further details were given on the Section 106 agreement for MH1. · Councillors agreed that they were pleased with the report and that good communications were in place with the local ... view the full minutes text for item 135. |
Related pages