To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Cllrs Carol Allaway Martin, Derek Biddle (sub Arthur Thomas), Frankie Evans, Marrilyn Smart (sub Jane Horne) and David Thomson (sub Di Martin).

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 11 November 2010, including the amended terms of reference agreed at the meeting (attached).

The minutes of the meeting held on 11 November 2010 were confirmed and signed as an accurate record.

The chairman to identify any items of urgent business.

The chairman identified no items of urgent business on this occasion.

To receive any declarations of interest in any matter to be discussed at the meeting.  Members and officers are requested to identify the nature of the interest and indicate whether it is personal or prejudicial.

No declarations were made at the meeting.

The Forward Plan Manager to present an update on the strategy (attached) and the statutory process going forward.

Cllr Lawton, co-chairman of the committee, welcomed members of the public and elected members to the meeting. He reminded the meeting of the reasons for the review and made the following statement:

Full Council was asked at its meeting on 30 September 2010 to approve the final preferred version of the Core Strategy we have been working on over the last five years.  This would then be published and interested parties could make formal representations on the document. These would be coordinated by the Council and submitted to the Secretary of State alongside the Council’s response to them. Because there had been a number of public questions, Members were concerned to ensure that the document was relevant and met the needs of the District.  For that reason, Scrutiny were asked to arrange for a further period of consultation with Members and third parties with a view to submitting a final version to Full Council in the new year;

We should recognise the considerable work that has been put in by members and officers in getting us to this stage. I must also thank all the members of the community who have made representations in respect of the document at the previous formal consultation stages. Today’s event offers an additional opportunity for the public and interested parties to ask questions and make representations in respect of the Core Strategy. Members of this Council had a separate opportunity to ask questions at the all member briefing on 4^th November. The questions and answers from that session are set out in our papers tonight at pages 49-53.

This exercise is a final check that the Core Strategy has gone through the formal stages necessary and that everyone who has an interest has had the opportunity to engage with it. It is not intended to be a re-run of the formal steps that have been undertaken or indeed replace the final formal publicity stage. Our role as scrutiny committee members is to consider whether or not to recommend to Council that the Core Strategy now proceed to the final formal publicity stage.

Cllr Lawton then invited the Forward Plan Manager to give an update on changes to the Strategy since 30 September.

The Forward Plan Manager referred to agenda page 11, explaining that key changes had been made in the light of issues raised at the Full Council meeting, the councillor information session on 4 November and from comments received since then.

The purpose of the first change at paragraph 3.24 was to give more background on the district’s heritage, particularly in relation to ‘forest waste’. The changes to CSP1 on agenda pages 11 and 12 reflected requests to be more explicit about considerations, adding bullet points for clarity.

The changes to CSP4 on agenda page 16 related to development principles to give a focus on the importance of infrastructure

The changes to CSP5 on agenda page 18 brought the numbers to the front of the policy to show the overall expected change  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

As part of the information-gathering phase of the review, each contributor will be given five minutes to ask their question and a supplementary and/or to make representations.

The question and answer are attached to the agenda.

Mrs Newton presented the attached PowerPoint presentation, emphasising the importance of referendums in the future and the need for single person dwellings to enable relatives to remain in the area.

Cllr Easton asked who she believed would pay for referendums and what form they would take.

Mrs Newton replied that the Localism Bill, due to be published the following week would lay out how referendums would be conducted and she thought that perhaps developers would pay for them, given that referendums were only a step further than the current consultation requirements.

Answering Cllr Lawton, Mrs Newton stated that central government had intended referendums to be for neighbourhoods and so she envisaged that if a development were planned for Lydney, then only Lydney residents would take part.

Cllr Martin commented that many assumptions were being made about the Localism Bill. She said that the government’s intention was to hold referendums only on intended affordable housing proposals that entailed building beyond current settlement boundaries.

 She had not picked up any other intention. It would be a huge barrier to hold continual referendums. She had gathered views from both older and younger residents that one bedroomed homes were not what they needed and suggested two bedroomed dwellings, looking at long-term needs.

 Mrs Newton said that Friends of the Earth had flagged up the issue of single person needs. She accepted that one-bed dwellings were less versatile, as identified from county council data. She asked if the available land should be taken up by larger three or four bed dwellings or using the figure of 57 per cent single person need build smaller dwellings and use less land.

Cllr Martin expressed concern over the big difference in size between one-bed and three/four bed dwellings.

The Forward Plan Manager agreed that everyone was waiting for the detail of the Localism Bill to clarify matters. However household figures from the 2010 county council data were similar to those used as a basis for the Strategy, representing an overall 17 per cent increase in stock. The aim was to achieve a balance and the advice received was to be flexible regarding two/three bed dwellings. He agreed that the smallest unit was the least flexible and the council would not want to be over-committed to this type.

Mr Blake has informed the council that he will not be present at the meeting. The question and answer are attached to the agenda.

Mr Blake did not attend the meeting and his submission would be taken into consideration at the analysis stage of the review.

Awaiting a response regarding attendance at the meeting.

A Newent Town Council representative did not attend the meeting and its submission would be taken into consideration at the analysis stage of the review.

No one from the council will be present at the meeting.

The question and answer are attached to the agenda.

A Tidenham Parish Council representative did not attend the meeting and its submission would be taken into consideration at the analysis stage of the review.

The question and answer are attached to the agenda.

Mr Owen commented that the subject of wind turbines kept cropping up in the district, yet there was no policy in place in the Strategy. Given the need to address renewable low carbon energy he asked what the council was doing in this regard.

He also assumed that the Forward Plan Manager was presenting the Strategy to the council without reflecting the community view. The council now had the opportunity to revise the Strategy while the Communities Bill (sic) came into legislation. He appealed to councillors to get rid of petty tribalism and to focus on evolving a plan of substance.

The Forward Plan Manager agreed that the Localism Bill would take time to be passed into law. However current central government advice was that if local authorities were confident of the robustness of their Core Strategies, they should submit them for inspection. He confirmed that upon publication by the council, the Strategy would be tabled for comment. He emphasised that the Strategy was a general document and would not necessarily include policies such as wind power, but did contain renewable energy targets. It gave general protections in terms of landscape guidance.

Committee members asked no questions.

The question and answer are attached to the agenda.

Professor Moseley that he had been interested in the statistics relating to this area for the past six years or so. He had worked with the Friends of the Forest group and had analysed 189 measures covering the 27 wards in the district. Only one measure relating to Lydney east showed deprivation. The district was in the top half of the most comfortably off within the country. He had considered housing data, noting that there was a high level of owner occupancy in the district with only 0.3 per cent homeless, and 0.05 per cent in shared dwellings. 82 per cent of households had one or more rooms more than they needed.

He questioned the population increase projection of 14160, stating that according to county council data natural changes would lead to a decrease of 5000. There had been a change in household structure with an increase in single householders and he agreed that it was important to recognise their needs. He contested the Forward Plan Manager’s response to his question on agenda page 44, which stated a need for 6000 new dwellings. Conversions of larger properties had proved successful elsewhere in addressing the need for smaller dwellings. He asked if the housing numbers in the Strategy had been predicated on county council figures regarding in-migration rather than on natural indigenous growth and change.

The Forward Plan Manager replied that the figure of 6000 new dwellings was based on figures that included in-migration and natural changes. The balance was based on a need of 200 extra persons per year (arising from the expected net in migration). It would be wrong not to take into account these changes.

Professor Moseley commented that he and The Forward Plan Manager were using the same data, but that the key issue was around policy. Was the council trying to address local needs or encourage in-migration?

On invitation from Cllr Lawton, Cllr Molyneux, Cabinet Member for Planning, Strategic Housing and Regeneration responded that the Council had no specific policy on in-migration. However, the district was a beautiful part of the country and he had himself moved to the district seven years previously. He recognised an issue concerning the number of residents travelling to work each day outside the district, adding that there were inevitably more jobs in cities. He did not believe the predicted numbers of new dwellings to be that dramatic.

Professor Moseley agreed that figures he had seen ten years ago showed that 35 – 37 per cent of workers travelled out of the district to work, which was still below the national average for rural areas of 48 – 51 per cent. However the question remained as to whether the council’s policy was to encourage in-migration.

Cllr Coborn asked if Professor Moseley’s figures took account of the 2000 people on the housing waiting list.

Professor Moseley replied that he had only used figures from the county council data. It was difficult to build in affordable housing needs. He believed that the council  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.6

Information gathering – questions received after 15 November 2010

Each contributor will be given five minutes to ask their question and a supplementary and/or to make comments.

Since the publication of the agenda the council had received submissions from Mr Walt Williams, the Southend Lane Action Movement (SLAM), Newent Town Council and Friends of the Forest. These appear attached to the minutes. Mr Williams and Mr Hodgson of SLAM attended to present in person.

Mr Walt Williams

Mr Williams expressed disappointment with the answer to his question. The issue would need to be well documented and would carry less weight. He recognised that the council was ‘in betwixt’ with the impending Localism Bill. The public should be given a better chance to have their say and for their views to be put into the final document. If the Strategy was so fluid, why could those comments not be put into the document and involve the main points regarding infrastructure and housing needs. He had reservations regarding referendums and accepted that in most cases elected members should make decisions, with the proviso that they better represented local feeling. He disagreed with the view that the council could not control out of district working. The issue is mentioned in the Strategy, but no link made to housing documents. He cited a recent appeal where 95 per cent affordable; housing was identified, but it had carried little weight with the inspector, because the council had been less than determined to achieve its aim. With the impending central government changes he hoped that inspectors would take more notice of local opinion.

The Group Manager for Planning and Housing explained that much had been made of the Localism Bill at the meeting. He had attended a seminar that day where it had been referred to as the ‘kitchen sink bill’, because there was so much in it. Because of a further delay it would not receive royal assent until the end of 2011 or possibly early 2012. If the council waited to submit a Core Strategy, the existing Local Plan would become increasingly out of date and inspectors would give it increasingly less weight. The council’s current policies did not always follow current central government guidance and in the case of appeal, government guidance would take precedence. He recognised that elected members wanted to ensure local influence, which would not be possible with an out of date framework. All current central government guidance stated that to have a Core Strategy was important. The Localism Bill will contain a presumption in favour of "sustainable development", as originally proposed in the document "open source planning" published before the election. If there was no up to date plan this presumption would take precedence and planning decisions would be made on the basis of national rather than local policy.

Mr Williams disagreed, saying that if sent to appeal, the inspector would still have available the Local Plan, which would be enforceable until the end of 2011, the draft Localism Bill and any government guidance.

Cllr Grace Bensted found it interesting to reflect on the possibility of being totally flexible in relation to housing as stated  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The committee to analyse and consider information and evidence from the elected member information-sharing seminar and from public submissions, to enable a recommendation to be presented to Full Council at its meeting on 24 February 2011.

Cllr Lawton invited comments on any of the submissions received to date.

Cllr Burford asked for clarification that there would be another meeting to fully consider all the submissions.

Cllr Hale, co-chairman, replied that it would be the case if no conclusion could be reached at the meeting. Cllr Lawton referred members to the resolution from the committee’s meeting on 11 November, which referred to ‘meetings’.

Cllr Burford said that for the analysis of the Strategy it would have been very useful to have an up to date copy of the whole document.

Cllr Lawton answered that councillors already had a complete Strategy document, together with the amendments document considered under item 5 of the agenda. All members had been sent the link to the updated Strategy on the council’s website. He therefore believed that it would not have been worth the cost of printing so many copies of a 96-page document.

Cllr Lawton welcomed Cllr Winship to the committee. She referred to agenda page 12, paragraph 6.1, asking for it to include a list of areas not suitable for development. She asked that the word ‘can’ be changed to ‘should’ in paragraph 6.2 on agenda page 12. She asked if the 243 dwellings mentioned on agenda page 18 would be dotted around anywhere in the district. Finally she thought that the density of 30 dwellings per hectare seemed very high for a rural setting such as the district.

The Forward Plan Manager replied that the central government was relaxing its guidance on density a little, but the Strategy was required to make the best use of available land. The importance was to achieve the relevant balance in different areas. The trend over the past seven years was for about 111 dwellings per year to be built on small sites including those outside settlement boundaries, and the number referred to in the question represented a slight decrease in the current number of new dwellings outside any defined settlements (about 16 per year).  He said that the key diagram sketched areas not suitable for development, but it might be useful to list such places as nature reserves and to provide more information about those areas within which there was expected to be very little new development .

The committee agreed to recommend to full Council to change the word ‘can’ to ‘should’ in paragraph 6.2 on agenda page 12.

Cllr Gardiner said that the committee needed an extra meeting to fully consider the comprehensive submissions received at the meeting. He had been impressed with the progress made, but was still saw a need for a definition of ‘forest waste’ and ‘replacement land’.

The Forward Plan Manager replied that on agenda page 21 CSP9 had been re-ordered and the text changed to address the issue of replacement land. The Strategy had also been amended to include a definition for ‘forest waste’ as at paragraph 6.55 on agenda page 22

Cllr Morgan asked why the response to the first question on agenda page  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.