Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Maqbool and Martin.  Councillors Serluca and Sylvester were in attendance as substitutes.

At this point Members must declare whether they have a disclosable pecuniary interest, or other interest, in any of the items on the agenda, unless it is already entered in the register of members’ interests or is a “pending notification “ that has been disclosed to the Solicitor to the Council.

Members must also declare if they are subject to their party group whip in relation to any items under consideration.

There were no declarations of interest or whipping declarations.

The Chairman read out the procedure for the meeting.

The Chairman advised that letters in support of the Call-In had been received from fourteen members of the public and they had been distributed to the Committee for their consideration.

The purpose of the meeting is to provide an opportunity for consideration of any request to call in a decision.  A Call-in request has been made in relation to the decision made by Cabinet which was published on 5 November 2012 regarding Development of Ground Mounted Solar Photovoltaic (Pv) Panels (Solar Farms) and Wind Turbines - NOV12/CAB/134.

The purpose of the meeting was to consider the Call-In request that had been made in relation to the decision made by Cabinet on 5 November 2012 with regard theDevelopment of Ground Mounted Solar Photovoltaic (Pv) Panels (Solar Farms) and Wind Turbines - NOV12/CAB/134.

The request to Call-In this decision was made on 8 November 2012 by Councillor Harrington and supported by Councillors Sanders and Sylvester.  The decision for Call-In was based on the following grounds:

i)      The decision does not follow the principles of good decision making set out in Article 12 of the Council’s Constitution specifically that the decision maker did not:

(a)     realistically consider all alternatives and, where reasonably possible, consider the views of the public

After considering the request to Call-in and all relevant advice, the Committee were required to decide either to:

(a)              not agree to the request to call-in, when the decision shall take effect;

             (b)       refer the decision back to the decision maker for reconsideration, setting out its concerns; or

             (c)       refer the matter to full Council.

In support of the request to Call-in Councillors Harrington, Sanders and Sylvester made the following points:

Councillor Harrington

·         The Cabinet Decision had not taken best practice in the Local Plan into account.

·         No alternative schemes had been considered.

·         Value for money had not been clearly defined.

·         Proposed development would be built on Grade 1 and 2 agricultural land but there was no detailed evidence that other sites had been considered with a lower grading.  The Local Plan clearly stated that any proposal for development on best quality agricultural land should be accompanied by evidence that sites on any previous developed land and urban areas have been investigated and a detailed explanation as to why such sites were unacceptable.

·         The plan also stated that there needed to be a fully justified need to use agricultural land higher than grade 3 for development.

·         The plan also stated that the Council recognised the need to protect good quality agricultural land for future generations. 

·         The report identified two other sites at Wittering and Castor but with no specific details of the land available or quality of agricultural land.

·         There was no evidence in report of environmental consequences and impact on the community affected.

·         Miers Ltd had been mentioned as a possible contractor for the design and installation of solar panels on the roofs of schools but no mention of design and installation of ground mounted solar panels.

·         No parallel schemes tendered.

·         Consultation had been poor and no engagement with tenant farmers.

·         Decisions had been based solely on cost and should be referred back to Cabinet.

Councillor Sanders

·         Concurred with Councillor Harrington.

·         All alternatives had not been considered or the views of the public.

·         Not considered finances and long term business plan and the decision had been rushed through.

·         No evidence that there would be a return on investment.

·         Did not believe Cabinet had been in possession of full facts to be able to make the decision.

·         Not satisfied with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.