Issue - meetings

Mrs Nicki Elks queried the risk of legal challenge with the delivery of the document following the use of  ‘less prescriptive’ wording changes made to the updated draft Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), as set out in Appendix A to the report and considered that these changes gave the developer space to change the vision going forward. Mrs Elks suggested that this also applied to areas of the Councils ownershipas well where the proposed changes increased the risk of failing to deliver the intent with the SPD produced by the Council In conclusion, she suggested that, if the Council was minded to adopt the proposed changes, reassurance be provided to ensure the vision would not be altered.

Mr Patrick Davies queried the content of paragraphs 3.3 and 3.4 of the report and stated that the public Informal Policy Group (IPG) meeting on 14 May 2018 had not been publicised on the Council’s website. Mr Davies queried that at the public IPG meeting, a handout was provided that did not reflect the challenge or changes to the SPD that the Council were now proposing. He questioned why the Council had not gone public in detail about the changes and why the IPG had met in private with the public not being advised about the legal challenge.

In response to Mr Davies concerns, the Leader advised that the minutes of the IPG were open to the public to view on the Council’s website when they became available.

Mr Terry Gould stated that the development of this area of the City was important to the entire District. Mr Gould made reference to the provision of bus stops and raised alternative approaches that should be investigated particularly around consideration of the bus hub at Friarsgate. In addition, he also made reference to the access to the café in Kings Walk and suggested an alternative arrangement, Mr Gould reiterated the concerns previously expressed and considered that the original wording of the SPD should remain, as set out therein.

Mr Tim Fell suggested that as the Committee was required to scrutinise the lengthy content of the SPD, both this Committee, and Cabinet, should consider postponing its decision to ensure there was adequate time to address all the matters raised.

Councillor Horrill introduced the Report and its appendices on behalf of the IPG.  The SPD set out the 18 months of work and represented  the clear vision and objectives for the site that had been the aspirations of the City and District, following the response of 2,500 residents, partners and businesses during a three and a half month consultation period.

Councillor Horrill reported that the changes reflected in the updated draft SPD had been thoroughly reviewed  to ensure they did not conflict with the Local Plan and were tethered to the Council’s Planning Policies to ensure the document was robust; the Council was the majority landowner with over 80% of the land in its ownership. Furthermore, it was reported that the updated draft SPD had been considered and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9