(Council Procedure Rules Section 6) Members of the public who live or work in the Borough are invited to put one question of not more than five minutes duration.
(Note: The maximum time to be set aside for this item is 30 minutes, but if all questions are dealt with sooner, or if there are no questions, the Council will proceed to the next business.
Each person may ask one question only. A total of five minutes will be allowed for the question to be put and answered. One further question will be allowed arising directly from the reply, provided that the original time limit of five minutes is not exceeded.
Written questions may be submitted by members of the public to the Service Manager (Democratic Services and Elections) no later than 10.00 am on Monday 21 September 2015. The written notification should detail the full question to be asked at the meeting of the Council.)
Minutes:
The following questions were put and answered during this item:
1. Adrian Williams of Bury St Edmunds, asked a question in connection with his objection to the recommendation of the Sustainable Development Working Party and Cabinet to reinstate the originally proposed site for potential Gypsy and Traveller accommodation in the Masterplan for the South East Bury St Edmunds strategic development site, and how this appeared to go against the decision of the Development Control Committee which had refused permission for a planning application for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation in this location.
In response, Councillor Alaric Pugh, Portfolio Holder for Planning and Growth stated that the decision to refuse planning permission had been taken into account during the Council’s consideration of the Masterplan. The emergence and recommended adoption of this document would amount to a material change in circumstances which could affect and influence any outstanding appeal, particularly as upon adoption of the Masterplan, the first reason for refusal would fall away. Councillor Pugh continued with explaining that the importance of the community woodland site in the wider landscape would be changed given that the Masterplan development would subsequently provide many hectares of public open space, including new woodlands and therefore the existing community woodland land had become more appropriate as a potential Gypsy and Traveller site.
2. John Corrie of Bury St Edmunds, asked a question in connection with the above topic, including the decision of the Development Control Committee to refuse permission for a planning application for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation in this location. Mr Corrie also made reference to the current land ownership of the community woodland site and how alternative Gypsy and Traveller sites in the Borough should be sought.
In response, Councillor Alaric Pugh, Portfolio Holder for Planning and Growth reiterated his comments to Mr Williams to Mr Corrie, adding that the need for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation did not form part of the reasons for refusing the proposed development at the woodland site.
In his supplementary question, Mr Corrie referred to Suffolk County Council as landowner, not making the community woodland site available for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation. In response, Councillor Pugh stated it was inappropriate to comment on the land ownership issue as full Council was considering the adoption of the Masterplan for the South East Bury St Edmunds strategic development site and not a planning application for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation.
3. In response to a question from Simon Harding of Bury St Edmunds, which was in connection with the Council’s support for more food self-sufficiency and the reduction in food imports and miles, Councillor Alaric Pugh, Portfolio Holder for Planning and Growth, explained how the Council supported the policy, particularly in terms of promoting economic growth. He quoted Actions contained in the West Suffolk Six Point Plan for Jobs and Growth which indicated how the Council was committed to local businesses, provisions markets and the agricultural sector in helping to support national policy.
In a supplementary question, Mr Harding asked how the Council classified the quality of the arable farmland at Hollow Road Farm and whether brownfield land should be firstly considered for the siting of the proposed West Suffolk Operational Hub (WSOH). In response, Councillor John Griffiths, Leader of the Council stated that the Hollow Road Farm site was not the preferred option for the WSOH and further consultation was proposed to be undertaken on this issue (as detailed later in the minutes). The most suitable location for a WSOH would not necessarily be on brownfield land as many other factors needed to be considered (as detailed later in the minutes).
4. In response to a question from Valerie Legg of Bury St Edmunds, which was in connection with other sites being considered for the possible location of the West Suffolk Operational Hub and whether sites were being examined to the same depth as the Hollow Road Farm site, Councillor Peter Stevens, Portfolio Holder for Operations stated the following:
Subject to Council approval for funding (as detailed later in the minutes), a further six-week pre-planning application consultation process would be undertaken to provide an opportunity for suggestions for alternative sites and to provide information for public scrutiny, which would include the four matters detailed in the resolution of Cabinet in respect of this item on 8 September 2015 (Report No: CAB/SE/15/050 refers).
The outcomes of the consultation would be discussed with a Focus Group, who would be asked to comment on its content, including any preferred site and subsequently, a planning application would be submitted. Once the outcomes of the consultation and any preferred site had been with discussed with the Focus Group, the results of the consultation would be published.
In response to a supplementary question of Ms Legg, Councillor Stevens explained that a specific date had not yet been determined to commence the proposed new six-week pre-application consultation.
5. Nathan Loader, of Kedington Parish Council asked a question in connection with what he considered to be a flawed North East Haverhill Masterplan and how Haverhill needed to be more economically sustainable before it could be considered for additional housing, including whether the Council had worked with Cambridgeshire County [and District] Councils to ensure it was not ‘doubling up’ on its delivery of houses to match the assumed jobs growth in Cambridgeshire.
In response, Councillor Alaric Pugh, Portfolio Holder for Planning and Growth, explained that Haverhill and area had excellent potential for housing development and economic growth and by working closely with neighbouring authorities, developers, businesses etc, both this and the Haverhill Town Centre Masterplans had been produced to support that vision.
6. Justin Waite, of Kedington asked a question in connection with the consultation process for the North East Haverhill Masterplan and whether it had been undertaken with sufficient community engagement and in accordance with legislation and policy.
In response, Councillor Alaric Pugh, Portfolio Holder for Planning and Growth, stated that the consultation process had been extremely thorough and was in accordance with the Council’s adopted protocol for the production of masterplans and its own Statement of Community Involvement. He referred to documentation that indicated the level of consultation undertaken and offered this information to Mr Waite upon request.
In response to a supplementary question of Mr Waite where he wished to highlight that a significant part of the North East Haverhill development was proposed for Kedington parish, Councillor Griffiths, Leader of the Council explained how in addition to the significant investment in last ten years, the Council sought to enhance the future prospects of Haverhill and its surrounding area and both this and the Town Centre Masterplan assisted in bringing that vision to fruition.
7. Michael Collier, Chairman of Fornham St Martin cum St Genevieve Parish Council, asked a question in connection with the proposed new pre-application consultation process for the proposed location for the West Suffolk Operational Hub (WSOH) and sought assurance that the Council was not undertaking the new consultation to justify the previously preferred location of Hollow Road Farm.
In response, Councillor Stevens, Portfolio Holder for Operations, reiterated his comments that he had made to Valerie Legg above, and offered his assurance that this was a new consultation and following due consideration, a preferred site for the WSOH would be identified in conjunction with a Focus Group in an open and transparent manner.
(As the total time allocation of 30 minutes for this item had now exceeded and in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 10.1 (o), a motion to suspend Council Procedure Rule 6.1 was put to the vote and carried, to enable the remaining members of the public in attendance to have their questions put and answered within the designated time limit of five minutes each.)
8. Adrian Graves, of Great Barton asked a question in connection with the proposed new pre-application consultation process for the proposed location for the West Suffolk Operational Hub (WSOH) and how he felt the recommendation for Council’s consideration under Agenda Item 8 (B) (1), Report No: COU/SE/15/028, was misleading.
In response, Councillor Stevens, Portfolio Holder for Operations, explained that the recommendation sought sufficient funding to underwrite the project (with partners), which included the new pre-application consultation process. While Cabinet had approved the recommendation to undertake a further six-week consultation as an executive matter, it could only proceed with the approval of funding, as detailed in the recommendation to Council. The approval of funding would not limit a review of any potential sites that may come forward as part of the new consultation.
9. In response to a question from Howard Quayle, Chairman of Fornham All Saints Parish Council, in connection with funding previously allocated to the West Suffolk Operational Hub project and that now recommended for approval, Councillor Stevens, Portfolio Holder for Operations explained that a breakdown of costs had been outlined in the report, some of which would be used to facilitate the new consultation.