Agenda, decisions and minutes

There were no declarations of interest.

The Portfolio Holder for Growth and Sustainable Communities and Planning Services Portfolio Holder agreed that the Minutes of the meeting held on 12 March 2008 were a correct record. 

With reference to Minute no. 24 (Duxford Airfield Revised Conservation Area Appraisal) of the meeting held on 16 January 2008, the Planning Services Portfolio Holder noted that a formal invitation had yet to be received from the Imperial War Museum for the Cabinet to meet with them to explore a number of issues and concerns about the proposal.

The sustainability documents can be viewed on the Council’s website by visiting www.scambs.gov.uk/meetings and following the links to the relevant Portfolio Holder meeting. 

The Portfolio Holder for Growth and Sustainable Communities AGREED

1.         that, subject to the Corporate Manager (Planning and Sustainable Communities) making some small terminological modifications as discussed at the meeting, the following documents be published for consultation:

·         Draft Public Art Supplementary Planning Document

·         Draft Development Affecting Conservation Areas Supplementary Planning Document

·         Draft Trees and Development Sites Supplementary Planning Document

·         Final Sustainability Reports for each of these three SPDs

·         Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report Addendums, where produced, for these SPDs.

2.         that consideration be given to the establishment of a Public Art Support Group.

The Portfolio Holder for Growth and Sustainable Communities considered a report seeking agreement for three Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) to be published for consultation, namely Public Art, Development affecting Conservation Areas, and Trees and Development Sites. 

In connection with public art, those present raised the following issues:

·                               The role of public art and the importance of local involvement

·                               The level of demand for public art from small communities, and the aspirations of parish councils – public art should provide a “landmark” with which communities could relate

·                               The perception of what constitutes public art

·                               The extent to which public art should add value and quality to a development and, perhaps, serve some other function as well, such as the enhancement of public buildings

·                               The percentage element of development costs allocated to public art

·                               Preferred options for conducting initial public consultation, and the appropriate stage during development for providing the public art element

·                               The possible use of money allocated for public art to grant aid local community groups such as amateur dramatic societies

·                               The possible opportunities in using developers’ contributions to “pump prime” more ambitious public art projects

·                               The ultimate aim should be to deliver the artistic development of communities

The Planning Policy Manager reminded those present that the provision of public art was not obligatory, but was something that the Council would seek to encourage, where appropriate.  It had to be associated with the development from which the money came as part of the projected capital cost

In connection with trees and development sites, the primary concern was to secure long-term maintenance while recognising the value of trees in their own right.

In connection with developments in conservation areas, the Portfolio Holder for Growth and Sustainable Communities agreed with the Planning Policy Manager that, subject to it being re-worded so as to avoid any public perception of pre-determination, the consultation document should be published as drafted.

The Portfolio Holder for Growth and Sustainable Communities AGREED

1.              that, subject to the Corporate Manager (Planning and Sustainable Communities) making some small terminological modifications as discussed at the meeting, the following documents be published for consultation:

o            Draft Public Art Supplementary Planning Document

o            Draft Development Affecting Conservation Areas Supplementary Planning Document

o            Draft Trees and Development Sites Supplementary Planning Document

o            Final Sustainability Reports for each of these three SPDs

o            Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report Addendums, where produced, for these SPDs.

2.              that consideration be given to the establishment of a Public Art Support Group.

The Planning Services Portfolio Holder DEFERRED making a decision pending the receipt of a formal report and recommendation from officers. 

In the absence of a formal report, the Planning Services Portfolio Holder explained that, subject to a Council contribution of between £3,000 and £5,000, there was an opportunity to secure grant funding for a floor at St. Denis Church, East Hatley.  Although it remained unclear as to what the end use of the church might be, it was accepted generally that, without a floor, there could be no end use at all.  

The Planning Services Portfolio Holder asked that the Corporate Manager (Planning and Sustainable Communities) seek the views of the Ecology Officer before committing the Council to any works that might compromise the ecological value of the building.

Members and officers must also bear in mind the perception of the Council as Listed Buildings Authority.

The Planning Services Portfolio Holder DEFERRED making a decision pending the receipt of a formal report and recommendation from officers. 

The Planning Services Portfolio Holder AGREED that a scale of fees be introduced to adequately reflect the cost to the Building Control service of the additional works referred to in the report, and to allow this service to be suitably funded.

The Planning Services Portfolio Holder considered a report proposing charges for additional services falling outside the Building Control Charges Scheme. This would better reflect the costs incurred by these additional services that are neither statutory nor required to be provided as part of the Building Control Service. The principal additional service would be to provide a late Completion scheme to help customers with the sale of their properties.

The Planning Services Portfolio Holder AGREED that a scale of fees be introduced to adequately reflect the cost to the Building Control service of the additional works referred to in the report, and to allow this service to be suitably funded.

 The Portfolio Holder for Growth and Sustainable Communities and Planning Services Portfolio Holder received an information report on performance against the service plan.

Accepting that the report would evolve over a period of time, the Planning Services Portfolio Holder highlighted the need for a breakdown of appeal statistics as between decisions made by officers and those made by Members at Planning Committee.  An indication of the number of appeals allowed after officer recommendations had been overturned would also be useful.  

Drafts attached.  The Portfolio Holders and lead officer are requested to identify items, particularly those that are key, for inclusion in Portfolio Holder forward plans. 

The Growth and Sustainable Communities and Planning Services Forward Plans would be updated in due course.

To establish a preferred day, time and frequency for meetings in 2008-09, and to decide whether to continue with joint meetings or to hold separate Portfolio Holder meetings in the interests of clarity. 

A proposed schedule of meetings, based on one meeting every two months starting in July 2008, would be circulated in due course for approval.