Waverley Borough Council Committee System - Committee Document
Meeting of the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 26/07/2004
MINUTES of the MEETING of the CORPORATE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
held on 26th July 2004
(To be read in conjunction with the agenda for the meeting)
Mr P D Harmer (Chairman)
Mr P B Isherwood
Mr M A Clark (Vice Chairman)
Mrs S R Jacobs
Mr M H W Band
Mr J C S Mackie
Captain P G Burden
Mrs A E Mansell
Mrs C Cockburn
Mr W M Marshall
Mr M A Edgington
Mr A Rayner
Mr B A Ellis
Mr R C Terry
Mr P Haveron
Mr K Webster
Mrs M V M Hunt
Mr R J Gates, Mr D C Inman and Mr J M Savage attended as substitutes
Mr M J D Allan, Mrs E Cable, Mr V Duckett, Mr S D Edge, Miss G B W Ferguson,
Mr C H Mansell, Mr K T Reed, Mrs C E Savage, Mr C C E Slyfield and Mrs J A Slyfield
were also in attendance
(Agenda Item 1)
The Minutes of the Meetings held on 5th and 6th July 2004 were confirmed and signed.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
(Agenda Item 2)
Apologies for absence were received from Captain P G Burden, Mrs S R Jacobs and Mr J C S Mackie. Mr R J Gates, Mr D C Inman and Mr J M Savage attended as substitutes.
DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS
(Agenda Item 3)
Mr M A Clark declared a personal interest in both items relating to East Street, Farnham as a housing professional in case the discussions referred to housing issues. Mrs A E Mansell also declared a personal interest in the items as the wife of the Executive Portfolio Holder for East Street.
QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
(Agenda Item 4)
In accordance with Procedure Rule 10, Mrs A Thurston, a Farnham resident asked a question about whether affordable housing could be sited on the Riverside area of Farnham and why the matter of a reduced amount of residential units was excluded in the recent consultation exercise. The Chairman responded that the land at Riverside was currently under consideration for a relocated tennis facility and further car parking. With regard to the consultation process, the questionnaire was specifically designed to avoid leading questions, thus allowing the residents of Farnham to express their own views. Questions 2 and 4 did allow the opportunity for comments on any issues including residential numbers.
EAST STREET, FARNHAM – RESULTS OF THE CONSULTATION PROCESS
(Agenda Item 5; Appendix A)
The Committee considered the results of the consultation process and noted that from looking at the Executive Summary, the face-to-face survey appeared to be the most meaningful sample which was likely to be an accurate reflection of the views of the people of Farnham.
RESOLVED that the results of the Consultation Process for East Street, Farnham received.
EAST STREET – SUBMISSION OF MASTERPLAN FOR LANDOWNER SANCTION
(Agenda Item 6; Appendix B)
The Committee received an outline of the history to the East Street site to date and was given a summary of the changes made to the Masterplan as a result of the consultation process. Details of representations from the Farnham Society and the Farnham Chamber of Commerce were circulated at the meeting.
Clarification was sought on the dual roles of members in firstly granting landowner sanction and secondly throughout the planning process. It was explained that decisions concerning landowner sanction relate to the basis on which an authority disposes of capital assets to achieve best consideration. Planning decisions are made in accordance with the Local Plan unless material considerations relevant to the proposals indicate otherwise.
The Committee moved into exempt session at 8.07 p.m. (under Paragraphs 9 and 12 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972) to receive clarification on issues surrounding affordable housing and the viability test within the conditional contract.
The public was readmitted to the meeting at 8.49 p.m.
RESOLVED to advise the Executive that
1. the outcome of the proper consultation with the people of Farnham be welcomed, and the thorough consultation achieved, as sought in earlier meetings, be recognised;
2. the submission of the revised masterplan be welcomed and the efforts of Crest Nicholson Sainsburys to respond to comments from the poll be acknowledged;
3. the revised masterplan for landowner sanction be approved; and
4. officers be instructed to work further with Crest Nicholson Sainsburys on outstanding issues referred to in the report, and to issue further reports as appropriate, as we progress through the planning stages.
The meeting concluded at 9.12 p.m.