Agenda and draft minutes

Council
Thursday, 12 October 2017 6.30 p.m.

Venue: District Council Chamber, South Lakeland House, Kendal. View directions

Contact: Inge Booth 

Items
No. Item

C/38

Chairman's Announcement

Minutes:

The Chairman, on behalf of the Council, extended best wishes for a speedy recovery to both the Leader, Councillor Giles Archibald, and Councillor Chris Hogg.  Councillor Tom Harvey, wished Councillor Ben Berry well in light of the impending birth of his baby.

C/39

Minutes pdf icon PDF 300 KB

To authorise the Chairman to sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 25 July 2017 (copy attached).

Additional documents:

Minutes:

RESOLVED – That the Chairman be authorised to sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 25 July 2017.

C/40

Public Participation

Any member of the public who wishes to ask a question, make representations or present a deputation or petition at this meeting should apply to do so before the commencement of the meeting.  Information on how to make the application can be obtained by viewing the Council’s Website www.southlakeland.gov.uk or by contacting the Committee Services Team on 01539 733333.

 

(1)        Questions and Representations

 

            To receive any questions or representations which have been received from members of the public.

 

(2)        Deputations and Petitions

 

            To receive any deputations or petitions which have been received from members of the public.

Minutes:

RESOLVED – That it be noted that no questions, representations, deputations or petitions have been received from members of the public in respect of this meeting.

C/41

Declarations of Interest

To receive declarations by Members of interests in respect of items on this Agenda.

 

Members are reminded that, in accordance with the revised Code of Conduct, they are required to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests or other registrable interests which have not already been declared in the Council’s Register of Interests.  (It is a criminal offence not to declare a disclosable pecuniary interest either in the Register or at the meeting.)

 

Members may, however, also decide, in the interests of clarity and transparency, to declare at this point in the meeting, any such disclosable pecuniary interests which they have already declared in the Register, as well as any other registrable or other interests.

 

If a Member requires advice on any item involving a possible declaration of interest which could affect his/her ability to speak and/or vote, he/she is advised to contact the Monitoring Officer at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting.

Minutes:

RESOLVED – That it be noted that Councillor Pete McSweeney declared an interest in Minute C/47 below.

C/42

Local Government Act 1972 - Excluded Items

To consider whether the items, if any, in Part II of the Agenda should be considered in the presence of the press and public.

Minutes:

RESOLVED – That it be noted that there are no excluded items on the agenda.

C/43

Chairman's Announcements

To receive announcements by the Chairman.

Minutes:

A list of engagements attended by the Chairman since the last meeting had been circulated prior to the meeting and the Chairman expressed gratitude for the effectiveness and enthusiasm shown by local organisations at recent events.

 

Note - The Chairman indicated that he would be bringing forward the urgent Item No.14 (Request for Unauthorised Absence from Council and Council Committee Meetings) for consideration as the next item of business.

C/44

Request for Authorised Absence from Council and Council Committee Meetings pdf icon PDF 156 KB

To consider, in accordance with section 85(1) of the Local Government Act 1972, a request to authorise Councillor Chris Hogg’s absence from Council and Committee meetings until and including 28 February 2018.

Minutes:

Note – The Chairman of the Council had been consulted and had agreed that, due to the circumstances, and the time constraints concerned, this item should be considered at this meeting of Council as an urgent matter.

 

The Director of Policy and Resources (Monitoring Officer) asked Members to consider a request from Councillor Chris Hogg for authorisation of his absence from Council and committee meetings in accordance with Section 85(1) of the Local Government Act 1972.

 

Section 85(1) required elected Members to have attended a qualifying meeting within six months of their last qualifying attendance. The Local Government Act 1972 also made provision for leave of absence to be granted if approved by the Authority prior to the expiration of the six month period.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Brian Cooper, seconded by Councillor Roger Bingham, and

 

RESOLVED – That, in accordance with Section 85(1) of the Local Government Act 1972, Councillor Hogg’s absence from Council and committee meetings be authorised until and including 28 February 2018, for the reasons set out in the report.

 

Note – Councillor Tom Harvey, seconded by Councillor David Williams, proposed that Agenda Item No.13 (Notice of Motion) be brought forward for consideration as the next item of business.  The motion was not carried on voting.

C/45

Capital Programme Provision - New Road - Common Land pdf icon PDF 62 KB

To consider approval of an amendment to the Capital Programme to provide a budget for the initial reinstatement of the Common.

Minutes:

Councillor Graham Vincent, Economy and Assets Portfolio Holder, presented a report which asked Members to give consideration to the approval of capital funding to facilitate common land to the South of New Road being reinstated for use by the public to enter and remain on the land for the purpose of open-air recreation. In addition, it was being proposed that further consultation would be undertaken with relevant authorities, groups and the public to inform a final decision on the long-term use of the site.

 

Councillor Vincent provided details on the decisions made by Cabinet on 30 August and on 15 September following the Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s consideration of the called-in decisions CEX/38 and CEX/39 (2017/18) earlier on 15 September.  He made particular reference to a significant number of organisations who had shown interest in working together with the Council to make Kendal’s the best riverside experience in England.  He proposed that the recommendations within the report be accepted and this was seconded by Councillor Jonathan Brook.

 

A lengthy debate ensued.

 

Those Members who spoke in support of the proposals made reference to the fact that car parking on the site was unlawful and uninsurable and that if the site was deregistered as Common land and a car park created, it would only be for approximately 70 vehicles.  It was also suggested that there was no other land to replace New Road Common if deregistered and also that there was no guarantee of deregistration.  They stressed the need for the Council to make the land safe in order to re-instate it for the use by the public and to consult on the long term future use.

 

Strong concerns were expressed at the lack of consultation, the speed at which the Common had been closed off to vehicles, the safety of the boulders which had been used and the legality of the closure.  The creation of a leisure park on a small and unattractive piece of land was questioned and attention drawn to the fact that the funfair would still use the land and potentially destroy what would be put in place.  The cost of future maintenance of the site was also highlighted.  It was felt that a full evaluation was required prior to commencement of any work, also bearing in mind the fact that the Environment Agency had yet to come forward regarding the flood alleviation proposals.

 

Councillor David Evans felt that there had been too little consultation.  He stated that he was already receiving complaints from the residents within his Ward regarding on-street parking, some seeking residents’ parking permits.  He questioned the need to remove the tarmac at this stage.  Councillor Evans proposed an amendment to the recommendations contained within the report, as follows:-

 

(a)        paragraph 2.1(1) is replaced with, “that the report is noted, but is considered insufficient to support the original recommendation;”

 

(b)        officers and the Portfolio Holder are requested to work up more rigorous and detailed proposals that are included in the public consultation  ...  view the full minutes text for item C/45

C/46

Publication of South Lakeland Local Plan (Part 3) Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (DPD) pdf icon PDF 92 KB

To consider publication of the Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (DPD) for formal representations prior to submission to the Planning Inspectorate for Examination.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (DM DPD) was presented by the Deputy Leader and Housing and Innovation Portfolio Holder, Councillor Jonathan Brook.

 

Following the adoption of the South Lakeland Core Strategy in 2010 and the Land Allocations DPD in 2013, the Council was now preparing a DM DPD. The document would form part of the Council’s Local Plan and would result in the replacement of the current Local Plan (2006). The DM DPD would be used for development management purposes, in guiding the determination of applications for planning permission outside of the Lake District and Yorkshire Dales National Parks.

 

In presenting the report, Councillor Brook referred to a letter to Members from Garner Planning, on behalf of the Cumbria House Builders Group, copies of which had been circulated prior to the commencement of the meeting.  In response to the issues raised within the letter, Councillor Brook explained that the Group had been consulted throughout the process, the deadline for comments having also been extended.  Councillor Brook informed Members that the Strategic Housing Market Assessment for South Lakeland had shown that this was a district with an aging population and that there was a need for accessible and adaptable dwellings.  In addition, Councillor Brook pointed out the need for robust planning in relation to surface water flooding. The impact of the Community Infrastructure Levy and the additional costs incurred by developers had been addressed within the document.  Councillor Brook informed Members that development would still be viable under the new policies and that dialogue would continue with house builders whose contribution was valued.

 

In moving the recommendations contained within the report, Councillor Brook thanked officers for their work in the production of a clear and informative document.  Councillor David Fletcher seconded the proposal.

 

During discussion, concerns were raised at the lack of affordable homes for sale within the district.  In addition, disappointment was expressed with regard to the loss of proposed affordable housing for sale within a large residential scheme in Ulverston.  It was pointed out that the document set out policies in relation to a number of topics, including Kendal Town Centre and Canal Head which raised a concern about the fact that the Ulverston Canal Head development had never come to fruition.  Attention was drawn to paragraph 5.2 of the report, where December 2016 should show December 2017.   Reference was made to the lack of clarification with regard to sustainable drainage systems.

 

Councillor Brook acknowledged the concerns regarding the lack of affordable housing for sale, however, drew attention to the fact that the Council was on target to deliver 1,000 affordable homes to rent.  The Development Strategy and Housing Manager pointed out that the affordable housing element of the Swarthmoor development was outside of the scope of the document, however, did raise the importance of viability and the need to be able to guarantee delivery.  In relation to Ulverston Canal Head, a strategy had been drawn up and consideration was being given to the correct way  ...  view the full minutes text for item C/46

C/47

Publication of Arnside & Silverdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Development Plan Document pdf icon PDF 97 KB

To consider publication of the Arnside & Silverdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Development Plan Document for formal representations prior to submission to the Planning Inspectorate for Examination.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Note – Councillor Pete McSweeney declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item of business by virtue of the fact that he was the Chairman of Arnside Parish Plan Trust and a member of the Arnside and Silverdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Executive Committee (representing South Lakeland District Council).  Having regard to potential bias and predetermination, Councillor McSweeney left the Council Chamber during the discussion and voting on the item.

 

The Arnside and Silverdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Development Plan Document (AONB DPD) was presented by the Deputy Leader and Housing and Innovation Portfolio Holder, Councillor Jonathan Brook.

 

South Lakeland District Council was working with Lancaster City Council to prepare a joint DPD for the Arnside and Silverdale AONB. The two councils were working closely with the AONB Management and Executive Committee, and the Arnside and Silverdale AONB DPD would the first of its kind.

 

The AONB DPD would be a key element in the delivery of the AONB Management Plan which had been adopted in April 2014.

 

Councillor Brook looked forward to the adoption of the document which would be of benefit to both the residents and the environment.  He moved the recommendations contained within the report.

 

Councillor Ian Stewart, in seconding the proposal, raised a number of issues.  He firstly wished to point out that the only ward affected by the contents of the report was Arnside and Beetham.  He then referred to the site mini brief relating to Land at Sandside Road and Quarry Lane, Sandside, and inaccuracies in the map.  The arrow indicating a vehicular access was in the wrong place.  In addition, Councillor Stewart referred to the arrow relating to the key view to be retained.  He was of the opinion that the whole stretch was a key view over the estuary and to Whitbarrow Scar beyond.  Councillor Stewart, however, commended the document to Council subject to these minor amendments.

 

Councillor Roger Bingham was keen for the AONB boundaries to be extended to take in the northern point of the Irish Sea.  He referred to the salt marsh which ran from the River Bela boundary through to Ninezergh; this was unspoilt meadow land which could be vulnerable to various landowners.  Councillor Bingham also referred to Meathop and Lower Kentdale and to the need for contiguous areas to also be protected.

 

Councillor Dyan Jones reminded Council of the early opportunity for involvement in the process which had been provided through the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and encouraged Members to take part in future.

 

Councillor Brook pointed out that the impact of a plan could have an effect on neighbouring parishes.

 

The Development Strategy and Housing Manager advised that the AONB boundary was not within the scope of this Plan.  He suggested that it would be possible to look at the concern relating to access and views.  He explained that the view to which the arrow related was that in the opposite direction towards a building which had recently been restored, however, acknowledged that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item C/47

C/48

Anti-Money Laundering Policy pdf icon PDF 51 KB

To consider approval of amendments to the Council’s Anti-Money Laundering Policy.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

A report setting out proposed amendments to the Anti-Money Laundering Policy was presented by the Director of Policy and Resources (Monitoring Officer). The required amendments had arisen as part of the Audit Committee’s annual review of the Anti-Bribery, Fraud and Corruption Policy.

 

The proposed changes would add examples of possible indicators of money laundering and procedures for cash payments over £1,000.

 

The recommendation contained within the report having been proposed by Councillor Stephen Coleman, and seconded by Councillor Tom Harvey, it was

 

RESOLVED – That the amendments to the Anti-Money Laundering Policy, as shown in Appendix 1 to the report, be approved.

 

Note – In accordance with Rule 8 of Part 4 (Rules of Procedure), a motion to continue the meeting past 9.30 p.m., moved by Councillor Jonathan Brook and seconded by Councillor Brian Cooper, was subsequently passed.

C/49

Leader's Announcements and Cabinet Question Time (30 Minutes)

To receive announcements from the Leader and, in accordance with Paragraphs 10.2 and 10.3 of the Council’s Rules of Procedure, to deal with any questions to the Leader and/or Portfolio Holders on any topic which is within the jurisdiction or influence of the Council and is relevant to their Portfolio.  Any Member who poses a question will be entitled to ask one supplementary question on the same topic.

 

Members are encouraged to give 24 hours’ written notice of questions to the Solicitor to the Council.  If no notice is received, then the Portfolio Holder can reserve the right to give a written answer.  Where written notice of questions has been given, these will be taken first.  Should a Member wish to ask more than one question, questions should be listed in order of priority.  If more than one Member sends in a question, these will be taken in alphabetical order of Members’ names, alternated from meeting to meeting.  Each question and each response is restricted to three minutes.

Minutes:

In accordance with paragraphs 10.2 and 10.3 of the Council’s Rules of Procedure, the following written question had been submitted to the meeting:-

 

From Councillor Ben Berry to Councillor Giles Archibald, Leader and Finance Portfolio Holder –

 

"The recent weather brings flashbacks of the terrible flooding caused by Desmond and Eva. I am sure members would be interested in hearing how successful this Council has been administering Flood grants. Please let us know the following:

 

How many properties were flooded in South Lakeland?

How many of these properties applied for a Flood Resilience Grant?

How many of those Flood Resilience Grant applications were approved?

How many of those approved Flood Resilience Grant applications were claimed?

How many of those Flood Resilience Grant claims have been paid and how many claims were rejected?"

 

In the absence of Councillor Archibald, a written response would be provided.

 

From Councillor David Evans to Councillor Giles Archibald, Leader and Finance Portfolio Holder –

 

“As we all know, the Floods Minister, Rory Stewart came to Kendal in March 2016 and announced that the government would be giving £58m to help protect Cumbria from Floods.  In addition, according to the Westmorland Gazette he said

 

‘I would expect a lot of money to be spent in Kendal.’

‘We're talking very significant sums and I would anticipate Kendal getting a big chunk of that.’

‘Kendal has not been forgotten.’

 

However, more than a year and a half later, no specific proposals have emerged and we are now being told by the Environment Agency that any monies for Flood defence works in South Lakeland and Cumbria will have to be approved through the normal process adopted by government and there is no specific funding earmarked for the area.

 

Will the Leader of the Council (or Chairman of the Council if under item 12) agree with me that this is a major cause for concern for our community and in addition will he agree to write to Rory Stewart and the appropriate ministers now in DEFRA to ask whether they agree that the government will stick to Mr Stewart’s pledge, so that work can start on protecting Kendal and other key areas in Cumbria as soon as possible.”

 

Councillor Jonathan Brook, Deputy Leader and Housing and Innovation Portfolio Holder, responded in the absence of Councillor Archibald.  He pointed out that all Members would wish to see speedy progress made by DEFRA (the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) regarding the flood alleviation works.  A response had been sought from the Environment Agency who had indicated a grant of £24m for Burneside, Staveley and Kendal.  The Agency had also advised of the stringent process to be followed to ensure the appropriate use of the earmarked funding.  Once this process had been followed and further community engagement carried out, they would move forward with the design and build.  Councillor Brook stressed the importance of working together to ensure progress was made.   He undertook to write to Rory Stewart M.P. highlighting the  ...  view the full minutes text for item C/49

C/50

Minutes of Meetings

To receive Chairmen’s comments (if any notified) in respect of the minutes of the Committee meetings held between 26 June and 15 September 2017.

Minutes:

RESOLVED – That it be noted that no comments or questions have been received in respect of the minutes of committee meetings held between 26 June and 15 September 2017.

C/51

Questions to Chairman of the Council or Chairman of any Committee or Sub-Committee

To deal with any questions under Rule 10.6 of the Council’s Rules of Procedure, of which due notice has been given and/or the Chairman allows as a matter of urgent business and which are in relation to any matter over which the Council has powers or duties or which affect the area.

Minutes:

RESOLVED – That it be noted that no questions have been received under Rule 10.6 of the Council’s Rules of Procedure.

C/52

Notice of Motion

The following Notice of Motion has been given in accordance with Paragraph 11.1 of the Council’s Rules of Procedure:-

 

“That this Council actively explores the possibility of de-registering that portion of New Road hitherto used as a car park and if proved feasible forthwith proceeds with the same and if successful converts it into a proper car park free for use by the public.”

 

(signed by Councillors James Airey and David Williams)

Minutes:

In accordance with Paragraph 11.1 of the Council’s Rules of Procedure, a notice of motion had been put to Council by Councillors James Airey and David Williams:-

 

“That this Council actively explores the possibility of de-registering that portion of New Road hitherto used as a car park and if proved feasible forthwith proceeds with the same and if successful converts it into a proper car park free for use by the public.”

 

Councillor Airey, having moved the motion, expressed his Group’s view that New Road Common’s use for free car parking should be retained.  He stated that there were differing legal opinions and that he was not convinced by the health and safety report.  He drew attention to the problems now being faced by the Holy Trinity and St. George’s Church and added that there had been a 20% drop in local business as a result of the closure.  Councillor Airey was seconded by Councillor David Williams who was of the opinion that the Council had not considered the action taken or explored the possibility of deregistration and exchange of land.

 

Councillor Jonathan Brook, Deputy Leader and Housing and Innovation Portfolio Holder, pointed out that the motion was too restrictive and that it failed to recognise the various options that would arise as part of the intended consultation process.  In addition, if the motion were to be carried, it would prevent a response to the Environment Agency should a request come forward to use part of the land in conjunction with a flood defence scheme.  Councillor Brook was keen for the Council to keep all options open.  Councillor Andrew Jarvis commended the process and decision made by Cabinet and highlighted, in particular, the unambiguous legal advice which had been received by the Council.  Councillor Matt Severn drew attention to the safety issues and to the fact that Kendal currently offered some good car parking offers.

 

A request having been made by the requisite number of Councillors, the following vote was recorded:-

 

The following Members voted in favour (5) – Councillors James Airey, Roger Bingham, Brian Cooper, Tom Harvey and David Williams.

 

The following Members voted against (19) – Councillors Jonathan Brook, Stephen Coleman, Nick Cotton, Philip Dixon, David Evans, Shirley Evans, David Fletcher, Gill Gardner, Brenda Gray, Vicky Hughes, Andrew Jarvis, Dyan Jones, Eric Morrell, Vivienne Rees, Sue Sanderson, Matt Severn, Ian Stewart, Graham Vincent and Mark Wilson.

 

The following Member abstained (1) – Councillor Rupert Audland.

 

The motion was lost.