Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Maqbool and Councillor Martin.  Councillor Over was in attendance as substitute for Councillor Maqbool.

There were no declarations of interest or whipping declarations.

The decision notice for each decision will bear the date on which it is published and will specify that the decision may then be implemented on the expiry of 3 working days after the publication of the decision (not including the date of publication), unless a request for call-in of the decision is received from any two Members of a Scrutiny Committee or Scrutiny Commissions.  If a request for call-in of a decision is received, implementation of the decision remains suspended for consideration by the relevant Scrutiny Committee or Commission.

There were no requests for call-in to consider.

The Cabinet Member for Growth, Strategic Planning, Housing, Economic Development and Business Engagement introduced the report which provided the Committee with an update of the Growth Agenda for the city.  The Cabinet Member invited questions from the Committee.

Questions and observations were made around the following areas:

·         Members noted that the number of Prestige homes (Tax Band G and H) being built were relatively small and wanted to know if the plan had  changed with regard to the number of Prestige Homes being built.  The Cabinet Member informed Members that the current policy was still to encourage the development of Prestige homes but developers could not be forced to build Prestige homes.  Landowners and developers did not see this as economically viable.  The Head of Planning, Transport and Engineering Services also advised Members that there were several sites allocated in the Sites Allocations Document for Prestige Homes.  There was planning consent in place for Prestige homes but they were not yet in the pipeline to be constructed. 

·         Members were concerned about the loss of larger houses within the city to Houses of Multiple Occupation (HMO) or flats.  Members referred to page 9 of the report and the section on Heritage, parks and gardens and the number of buildings subject to Article 4 Direction Control.  Were any of these blanket restrictions against houses going towards becoming Houses of Multiple Occupation?  Members were informed that it was not possible to have a blanket restriction in planning. 

·         Members sought clarification on the meaning of ‘Growth’.  The Cabinet Member informed members that his view of growth was more than just building houses it was a holistic view of the city e.g. housing, education, schools, university, employment, quality of life, sport, culture and entertainment.  Growth was all of those things for the benefit of everyone.

·         Members wanted to know how economic growth was targeted and measured.  The Cabinet Member informed Members that the policy was to attract high quality investment into the city which included high quality and highly skilled jobs however this was only part of the answer.   Peterborough had been attracting approximately 3500 new jobs net per annum for the last three years.  Opportunity Peterborough the economic development organisation has a part in the delivery of growth and inward investment and targets skills and jobs.  The Peterborough skills programme was considered to be the finest in the country with over a thousand companies involved.

·         Members sought clarification on the data presented regarding Jobs on page 8 of the report and wanted to know why the information only went up to 2011 and there was nothing for 2012/2013.  The Cabinet Member advised that the data he had received from Opportunity Peterborough had shown that in 2012 there had been a net increase of over 4000 jobs, in 2011 a net increase of just over 3000 and in 2010 a net increase of just under 3000 jobs in Peterborough.  There seemed to be some disparity between the statistical data shown in the report and the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

The report provided the Committee with the opportunity to scrutinise and comment on the Peterborough City Centre DPD (City Centre Plan) before being presented to Cabinet on 4 November 2013.  The Principal Strategic Planning Officer introduced the report and explained that extensive public consultation had already taken place on the emerging City Centre Plan and after the proposed version had been considered by Cabinet it would go to Full Council for approval.  If Full Council approved the City Centre Plan it would then be published for six weeks public consultation in early 2014 and then submitted to the Secretary of State where a public examination by an independent inspector would take place.  The independent inspector would provide a report with recommendations.  The plan would then be adopted in late 2014 or early 2015.  Maps indicating the area the city centre plan covered were handed out to Members at the meeting.  Members were advised that the plan had been written as a planning document and a marketing tool to try and attract inward investment into the city centre.  The plan set out the council’s long term vision and covered the following key themes:

·         retail

·         leisure

·         office development and employment

·         housing

·         historic environment

·         open space

·         transport and other infrastructure

Members were informed that a new section had been included on drainage and flood risk.

Questions and observations were made around the following areas:

·         The Chair advised that he was a Commissioner for the Nene Washlands and also sat on the Internal Drainage Board for the North Level District.  The Chair commented  that the Drainage Board for that area regarded the drainage of water into the counter drains and the drains maintained by the Internal Drainage Board as a sustainable method of drainage.  This view conflicted with the council’s planning policies which provide for onsite drainage of surface water.  It was a concern to the Internal Drainage Board that the water was being allowed to stay on site in areas that did not naturally drain rather than feeding into the drains and counter drains.  The Head of Planning, Transport and Engineering Services advised Members that Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) was national policy not just council policy. Defra guidance on the surface water consent regime had not yet been issued. Peterborough was a leading authority in influencing the policy direction for SUDS.   SUDS was mainly about managing the discharge of water from sites not necessarily keeping it on site in perpetuity.

·         How many people had responded to the public consultation?   Members were advised that just over 400 people had responded.

·         Members commented that Priestgate had a range of historic buildings and sought clarification on what plans were in place for revamping Priestgate.  Members advised that the policy approach regarding Priestgate was that of sensitive refurbishment and renewal.  It was not seen as a comprehensive redevelopment area due to it being one of the most historic streets in the city centre. 

·         Members noted that in the City Centre Plan document under section 5.5 Riverside  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Thursday, 7 November 2013

The meeting began at 7.00pm and ended at 9.04pm