Agenda item

To receive a report from the Head of Scrutiny and Member Development for the Board to note for information and to comment on the overall approach of the attached report of the Director of Development which sets out the City Council’s Local Development Framework – Annual Monitoring Report.

Having declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item, Councillor Cleasby left the meeting for the consideration of this matter and Councillor Hollingsworth took the Chair (Minute No. 58 refers).

The Head of Scrutiny and Member Development submitted a report attaching the report of the Director of Development which set out the City Council’s Local Development Framework – Annual Monitoring Report (AMR).  The Director’s report had been considered by the Development Plan Panel on 5^th December and the Executive Board on 13^th December 2006.  The AMR was subsequently dispatched to meet the Secretary of State’s deadline for submission of 31^st December 2006.

Members had been advised in the covering report that the AMR was being presented to the Scrutiny Board (Development) to note for information and to comment on the overall approach, with a view to incorporating any suggested changes in future Annual Monitoring Reports.  Members were also advised that any specific changes they recommended would have to be submitted back to the Development Plan Panel and the Executive Board for their consideration.

In attendance to present the report and respond to Members’ queries and comments were Peter Shilson, Team Leader Data, Steve Speak, Chief Strategy and Policy Officer and David Feeney, Head of Planning and Economic Policy, all from the Development Department.

In brief summary, the main issues raised were:

·  The transition period between the old and new system and the overlap of local indicators with regional indicators.

·  Affordable Housing – Concern that this indicator took no account of losses of existing affordable housing through Right-to-Buy sales and demolition, thus the stocks of affordable housing remained at low levels.  Members were advised that housing market assessments would be looked at regionally and holistically in order to produce an improved plan.

·  House building – Members were advised that the indicators were simplistic and did not show that the high figures in house building overall related to the boom in flats in the city centre.  Members were advised on the need for more robust plans and negotiations with developers in the city centre to maintain standards of development.

·  Waste removal and recycling figures – these issues and concerns, in particular that the indicator did not include commercial and demolition waste, would be debated at the March meeting of the Board when Officers would present a progress report on the development of a Sustainable Construction Design Guide.

·  Brownfield sites – concerns whether there was separate data to indicate the amount of development in back gardens. Members were advised that the data could be reworked to provide this information, but it was considered that this type of development was a very small proportion of the total.

·  Whether the AMR was value for money and being used to develop Council policies more efficiently and effectively.

The Chair thanked the Officers for their report.

RESOLVED – That the report and comments be noted.

(Note: Councillor Lewis joined the meeting at 10.40am during the consideration of this item.)

The meeting concluded at 11.10am.