Agenda and minutes

No apologies were received.

There were no declarations of interest.

The minutes of the meeting held on 17 June and 15 July 2013 were approved as a true and accurate record.

The Executive Director of Strategic Resources introduced the report which was presented to the Commission to provide a review of the current business model compared to the original business case, financial model and implications of the delay in the planning applications.

A report was presented to Cabinet on 5 November 2012 which was considered along with the recommendations made at a joint meeting of the Sustainable Growth and Environment Capital and the Scrutiny Commission for Rural Communities held on 5 November 2012. Cabinet confirmed that:

·         The potential for integrating some form of farming with renewable energy generation was already under consideration as part of the proposals.

·         The sensitivities around the two sites near America Farm (Oxney Grange and Flag Fen) would be taken into detailed consideration as part of the planning process.

Key Issues highlighted within the report were as follows:

·         Dual Use – The Council was currently exploring the viability of allowing certain types of farming in and around the solar panels

·         once they were installed

·         Planning – The Council submitted three planning applications for solar farms in December 2012. Since the submission, the Council had worked towards resolving a number of key issues raised by the Local Planning Authority; Morris Fen went to planning committee on 17 June 2013 but was deferred following communities and local Government having formally written to the council and a request by one of the statutory consultees, English Heritage, for further detailed survey work to be undertaken before the application could be determined.

·         Tenant Farmers – A review of the tenancies of farmers was undertaken to establish how to progress the development proposals with the least impact to them. All tenant farmers had been notified of the potential disruption from the required archaeology field work and informed they could farm for at least a further year. All farmers who wished to continue farming had been offered packages which allowed for farming on other land within the Council’s ownership or compensation where applicable.

·         Biodiversity – The key habitat loss was the arable farmland itself which was used by birds for foraging and nesting. The current ecological mitigation strategy was to establish neutral grassland beneath and between the panels. This would provide and new and enhanced habitat for animals and insects.

The Council would continue to work with individual residents, the Newborough Landscape Protection Group, the Local MP and other stakeholders to assess alternative solutions brought to its attention.

The Commission was asked to consider the report and feedback any comments.

Observations and questions were raised and discussed including:

·         Members requested further information on the alternative schemes available. The Executive Director of Strategic Resources advised Members that the alternatives were aimed more towards a different delivery model and the potential financial and carbon benefits it may deliver to the Council if alternative locations were considered.

·         Members commented that there was some dispute over facts and figures within the report. Members were informed that issues with facts and figures had not been highlighted to him and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

The report was presented to the Commission at the request of the Chairman in light of the confusion over neighbourhood plans. The intention of the report was to clarify what neighbourhood planning was and its role within the planning system.

The Chairman specifically raised queries in relation to the definition of neighbourhood planning terms, Community Infrastructure Levi (CIL), the benefits of having a neighbourhood plan and the legality of neighbourhood plans. A presentation was delivered to the Commission and the following key points were highlighted:

·         A neighbourhood plan was a plan that set out policies in relation to the development and the use of land. It could also include site allocations.

·         A neighbourhood order was a statutory mechanism which automatically granted planning permission for a certain type or class of development.

·         Plans and orders must meet basic needs and they need a majority vote at referendum to get adopted.

·         Plan policies could be applicable to a whole neighbourhood area or just a specific part.

·         Only one neighbourhood plan could be made for each neighbourhood area.

·         A development could not be stopped.

·         Most of the time and costs associated with the preparation of a plan/order were borne by the Parish Council/ Neighbourhood Forum

·         A plan could take up to two years to prepare.

·         Local Plans were Statutory Development Plan Documents (DPD’s) prepared by Local Planning Authorities. The Peterborough Local Plan was a compilation of various DPD’s

·         Parish/Village Plans were plans prepared by Parish Councils as non-statutory plans, such plans carried no weight in reaching decisions on planning applications

 Potential advantages of neighbourhood plans or orders:

·         Effectively give communities a greater influence over planning in their area

·         Facilitates development which was in line with local needs and priorities

·         Strengthen community relations

·         Become eligible for 25% of relevant CIL receipts compared to the 15% without a plan

·         Orders could make the delivery of certain developments quicker and easier

Observations and questions were raised and discussed including:

·         Members queried what the difference was between Village Design Statements and Neighbourhood Plans. The Planning Policy Manager advised members that Village Design Statements were now called Parish Plans and they had no planning status whereas Neighbourhood Development Plans did.

·         Members queried whether existing projects were going to be carried over to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) or if a Neighbourhood Development Plan was needed to be in place before they could be considered. Members were informed that if the Council wanted to introduce CIL then there would be a decision making procedure to choose which of the existing projects they wanted to spend money on. The Strategic Planning Officer informed the Commission that if no plan or order was in place then the Parish Council would only be eligible for 15% of CIL funding instead of 25%.

·         Members were concerned that the distribution of funds would favour Parished areas and urban areas would lose out.

·         Members commented that they had previously been advised that the Council provided villages with a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) and they did  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The Chairman advised the Commission that due to unforeseen circumstances there was no officer present to present this report. The Commission agreed to defer this item to the next meeting on 18 November 2013.

The Commission received the latest version of the Council’s Notice of Intention to Take Key Decisions, containing key decisions that the Leader of the Council anticipated the Cabinet or individual Cabinet Members would make during the course of the following four months.  Members were invited to comment on the Plan and, where appropriate, identify any relevant areas for inclusion in the Commission’s work programme.

ACTION AGREED

The Commission noted the latest version of the Council’s Notice of Intention to take key Decisions. 

Members considered the Commission’s Work Programme for 2013/14 and discussed possible items for inclusion.

18 November 2013