Minutes:
Mr Steve Taylor attended the meeting to pose the following question to the Leader:-
“The Leader of the Council is aware of the rage within Scothern, that despite a 23% increase in houses planned for the village, not one penny has been provided for Village facilities from planning obligation monies.Whilst both the law and planning guidance positively encourage community facilities being partly funded from new homes development, West Lindsey Planners fail to permit this. The Leader of the Council kindly offered to held a meeting with the planners so that we could examine why West Lindsey is inconsistent in its support for community facilities when other Councils in the UK are much more supportive. Unfortunately, several months on we have not had this meeting, I understand that this is being blocked by officers. Can he confirm that will be meeting soon to fully discuss this issue? Would he also like to comment on the view that if the Southern Area communities are not supported in improving their voluntary social, sporting and community facilities we would expect the Council to provide the capital, revenue funding and staffing for such facilities which we don’t have - but which other parts of the district do?”
The Leader responded:-
“I would like to thank Mr Taylor for his question as it is important that communities have the infrastructure they need to thrive and prosper.
Contributions towards infrastructure in villages can be made from a variety of sources.
Contributions towards infrastructure through s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 are strictly regulated and cannot provide for all the infrastructure a community might need.
Contributions from s106 agreements have to be based on the need for the infrastructure to mitigate the harm or impact of a development. Therefore contributions towards affordable housing, roads, schools and health centres are usually prioritised in this process.
Additionally any contribution through a s106 needs to take account of the effect of the contribution on the viability of the development. In other words contributions towards local infrastructure cannot make the proposed development unviable. Equally a development that is unacceptable in principle cannot be made acceptable by a s106 contribution.
I know Mr Taylor has had at least two meetings with officers and members (including legal officers) and that this has been explained to him, both face to face and in writing, in relation to recent planning approvals in Scothern. The council has also taken further legal advice in the points that he has raised and this has informed the responses he has had.
Finally I understand Mr Taylor is asking a variety of questions on this topic at a number of council committee meetings in the coming months. I will ask officers to take a note of the points he raises at each of these meetings and ensure he gets a comprehensive reply to all of them.
Mr Taylor then sought to ask a supplementary question stating that the Council compared itself with Craven District and that that Council was expecting £4,000 per new home as an off-site contribution for open spaces, sport and recreation, as many other Councils were also providing the same level of support. It was important that the voluntary sector be given the tools for the job, and Mr Taylor requested that Councillors seriously question advice given by Planners as it was erroneous.
A second public question was submitted by Mr William Roberts:-
“Sir,
Given the clear and committed support of West Lindsey District Council to the neighbourhood planning process, as experienced by both our own group, and the parish council.
Does the leader of the council feel it is the responsibility of all elected members to fully support those communities engaged in what is at times a difficult process, and assist in smoothing that path by encouraging concerned residents to engage with the properly appointed bodies and groups, rather than setting up independent opposition, distributing dubious and confusing information and generally obstructing the right and proper procedures necessary to develop a neighbourhood plan.”
The Leader responded by thanking Councillor Roberts for his question.
“Neighbourhood planning is directly aimed at protecting the environment of, and directing development within, a community which best fits the aspirations of that community. These aspirations very closely fit within the Corporate Plan of this Council, which include
· BEING OPEN FOR BUSINESS
· PEOPLE FIRST
· ASSET MANAGEMENT
· PARTNERSHIP WORKING
· AND OUR EMERGING NEW LOCAL PLAN.
Neighbourhood planning is not singularly driven by any one of this council’s priorities but is influenced by all. Simply because we are demonstrating we are open for business by promoting and assisting you with the production of your plan.
Within this process, we are demonstrating our intent to put our residents first. Asset management plays a significant role in determining where any development happens and in what guise.
To be successful we have to work in partnership with yourself and a raft of other agencies. Complying with our own planning policy and that produced by government. The support for Neighbourhood Plans can easily be demonstrated when you recognise we have a total of 33 plans in the system with 6 already approved. Of those responding to the most recent consultations, 83.92% of votes were in favour of the proposals at Dunholme, with 93.68 % in favour at Scothern.
It is very important that members of this council work with all constituted bodies within the plan process to produce a plan which is democratically produced by that community. We are all obligated to assist our communities in this process.”
Councillor Darcel then requested to speak in response, stating that he was delighted with the question and agreed that Members should be involved in the preparation of Neighbourhood Plans. Cllr Darcel was elected to represent the views of the community, not just those of the Neighbourhood Planning Group (NPG), and he did not feel that the Group were representing, or listening to, the residents, but a group of landowners, who were not working to the benefit of the village. Cllr Darcel stated that he was proud to represent residents and that was his number one priority, and that the NPG was an unelected group which was not doing so.