SCRUTINY COMMITTEE (ECONOMY AND
ENVIRONMENT)
MINUTES of a meeting held on 20th
June, 2007.
Present: Councillor N.P. Hodges
(Chairman); Councillor S.T. Wiliam (Vice-Chairman); Councillors
R.J. Bertin, J. Clifford, Miss J. Cole, G.A. Cox,
A.D. Dobbinson, Mrs. M. Kelly Owen, Mrs. A.J. Moore,
Mrs. A.J. Preston, Mrs. S.I. Sharpe, W.C.
Vaughan, A.J. Williams and M.R. Wilson.
Also present: Councillor R.F.
Curtis.
126 APOLOGIES FOR
ABSENCE -
These were received from Councillors
Ms. L. Burnett and E. Hacker.
127 MINUTES -
RECOMMENDED – T H A T the minutes of the
meeting held on 16th and 22nd May, 2007
be approved as a correct record.
128 DECLARATIONS OF
INTEREST -
No declarations were received.
129 LAND AT RHOOSE
POINT: PLANNING, HIGHWAYS AND DRAINAGE ISSUES - CURRENT POSITION
(REF. - MINUTE NO. C3045) -
Cabinet had, on 6th June, 2007
received a comprehensive report in relation to the above which had
outlined the relevant planning history and focused on specific
matters and the current position relating thereto in respect of
· Planning and Section 106
issues
· Highway Adoption issues
· Drainage issues
· Advanced Payment Code
(APC)
· The Rhoose Point
development
· The current position
regarding Highways Adoption and Drainage
· Other relevant issues.
As regards the unresolved Section 106 issues,
it was noted that those matters were currently being progressed
through frequent and regular discussions between Council officers
and representatives of Cofton. The position relating to
highway adoption issues and APC had also been outlined together
with matters pertaining to drainage issues. Cabinet had
expressed disappointment at the pace of progress, attributable in
the main to delays in responses from both Cofton Limited and Welsh
Water, although assurances had been received from both the above
that the necessary information would be provided in the near
future. Cabinet had subsequently resolved, inter alia,
· that the action taken to
date by officers in resolving outstanding issues relating to Rhoose
Point be endorsed
· that, given the
considerable concern at the significant matters outstanding, Cofton
Limited be strongly urged to resolve those issues with the utmost
urgency
· that a further detailed
report on progress on Rhoose Point issues be submitted to Cabinet
as soon as possible
· that representatives from
Cofton Limited be invited to meet with Cabinet in an effort to
resolve matters.
Cabinet also referred the report to the
Planning Committee and this Committee for information.
Since the date of the Cabinet meeting, further
correspondence had been received from Cofton which confirmed that
Arup had undertaken further work in respect of various drainage
issues. Progress too had been made in respect of matters
pertaining to the playing field.
Following further consideration of the above
and related matters, it was
RECOMMENDED -
(1) T H A T the resolutions
of Cabinet as contained in Minute No. C3045 be endorsed.
(2) T H A T representatives
from Cofton and from Arup be invited to a meeting of this
Committee, the timing of the invitation to be determined by the
Chairman.
Reasons for recommendations
(1) To respond to the
consultation procedure.
(2) To receive additional
information from Cofton and Arup.
130 LAND TO THE NORTH
OF THE RAILWAY LINE, RHOOSE - DRAFT DEVELOPMENT BRIEF: RESULTS OF
PUBLIC CONSULTATION EXERCISE (REF. - MINUTE NO. C3047) -
Cabinet had, on 6th June, 2007
considered the above and referred the same to the Planning
Committee and to this Committee as part of the consultation
process. Having had regard to the comments received as
a consequence of the consultation, the draft Development Brief had
been amended. The main changes made to the Brief
included:
· additional
reference to UDP Policies ENV24, ENV17 and ENV20 in Section 2 and
Appendix 2 of the Brief;
· reference to
the Sustainable Development SPG and the Public Art SPG within
various sections of the Brief;
· increased
emphasis on sustainability cross referenced to Strategic Policy 2
of the UDP in Section 2 of the Brief;
· an amendment to
the drainage and utility services Section (4.3) to clarify the
position of Dwr Cymru/Welsh Water requiring improvements to the
foul sewerage and water supply systems, as well as the comments on
the Environment Agency;
· an update to
Section 3 which dealt with assessment of the site in ecological
terms to reflect the comments of the Environment Agency and
Countryside Council for Wales. In addition, in Section 3.6
the Environment Agency had clarified that the site was located on a
minor and not a major aquifer. Additional comments relating
to protected species had also been added;
· Section 6
amended to reflect the comments of the Environment Agency by the
addition of the need for an assessment of historical land use and
the potential for contamination of the site, such assessment to
form part of any submission;
· the site
boundary for the Development Brief amended to be co-terminus with
adopted UDP allocation;
· additional
references and the need to improve access links between the site
and land to the South of the railway line within Section 4 and 6 of
the Brief;
· the Brief
amended in Section 3 to reflect studies and surveys already
undertaken in respect of ecological matters relating to the
site;
· insert cross
reference to Appendices 4 and 5 in paragraph 5.3 which referred to
key views out and into the site;
· clarification
in paragraph 4.6 to define the role of the emergency access off
Porthkerry Road.
It was noted that, despite the high level of
publicity given to the consultation process, that only 55 responses
had been received. Particular attention was drawn to the high
level of detail contained within the Brief in relation to Section
106 issues and the fact that various obligations were required to
have been met at various stages, failure to do so resulting in
delays in the timetable for the progression of the works.
RECOMMENDED - T H A T the resolutions of
Cabinet as contained in Minute No. C3047 be endorsed.
Reason for recommendation
To respond to the consultation process.
131 A JOINT SCRUTINY
OF PARTNERSHIPS IN WASTE MANAGEMENT (CX) -
This Committee had agreed, in November, 2006
that the invitation from Cardiff and Newport Councils for this
Council to join the Joint Scrutiny Committee investigating the
possibility of a partnership for residual waste treatment and
disposal be accepted (Minute No. 560). As part of the joint
scrutiny exercise there had been visits to Project Integra,
Hampshire; Shropshire Waste Management Partnership; North London
Waste Authority; and Somerset Waste Partnership. In addition
there had been a number of joint forum meetings to discuss the
outcomes of the visits and to consider the report of the joint
scrutiny, a copy of which was contained with the papers for this
meeting. That report had been agreed at a joint forum on
30th May, 2007. The relevant Scrutiny Committee in
the three other constituent authorities had already endorsed the
report with the intention of the views of those Committees being
forwarded to their respective Cabinet for consideration in
July.
The recommendations proposed within that joint
report were summarised as:
· the four
Councils to continue to work in partnership to secure a regional
waste management solution;
· that, in view
of the fact that to progress a regional solution to being
operational would take a number of years, the four constituent
Authorities be recommended to make prompt practical progress as a
matter of urgency;
· that, if the
above recommendations were to be accepted, the four local
Authorities formalise the partnership at the earliest opportunity,
potentially through a Memorandum of Understanding;
· that, prior to
defining the eventual partnership structure to be adopted, external
advice be sought in order to evaluate the available options and
identify the most appropriate model, that model to contain
sufficient flexibility to allow other potential partners to join
the partnership;
· that, since
progressing to an operational solution would be highly resource
intensive, each constituent Authority be recommended to make
arrangements to identify and make available the necessary
resources;
· that, since any
partnership would require sound project management, the four
constituent Authorities be recommended to appoint an independent
Project Manager who would be accountable to the partnership;
· that a
cross-Authority consultation and communication process be
progressed at the earliest opportunity to gain support for the
project and avoid unnecessary time delays later in the process.
A report was to be submitted to this Committee
in July relating to the issue of resources following the findings
of the recently undertaken affordability study. Another
matter of prime concern was the matter of timescale given that a
partnership approach would necessarily be somewhat protracted yet
waste disposal costs and the likelihood of fines was relatively
imminent. It was hoped that the timetable would be submitted
to this Committee at the next meeting. As illustrated
recently by the announcement of an incinerator in Cardiff and the
assumption that Cardiff Council was involved, any Partnership
needed to demonstrate a cohesive approach with a clear and positive
public relations strategy. It emerged that the aforementioned
announcement had been a private sector initiative.
The Officer Team involved in the joint
scrutiny exercise was thanked by the Committee, as were the Members
of the Task and Finish Group who had been so closely involved,
whereupon it was
RECOMMENDED - T H A T the report on the Joint
Scrutiny of Partnerships in Waste Management and its
recommendations be endorsed and forwarded to Cabinet for
adoption.
Reason for recommendation
To apprise the Members of the findings of the
joint scrutiny exercise and to make progress.
(Note: Councillor R.F. Curtis spoke on the
above with the consent of the Committee.)
132 SPECIFIC GRANT
EXPENDITURE - SUSTAINABLE WASTE MANAGEMENT (DEER) -
Details were presented of the expenditure
incurred under the Specific Grant for Sustainable Waste Management
(“the Grant”) for 2006/07 and endorsement sought for the proposed
expenditure of the Grant for 2007/08, 2008/09 and 2009/10.
The WAG provided the Grant in order to achieve the target for
recycling and landfill diversion. The revised Grant
allocation for this Council was:
2007/08
£1,359,422
2008/09
*£1,359,422
2009/10
*£1,359,422
(* = indicative amounts).
In 2006/07 the Grant had been spent on
· contribution
towards funding of the existing domestic kerbside recycling in the
Vale areas to 100% of properties
· contribution
towards the introduction of fortnightly domestic collection of
plastic and cardboard across the Vale
· green waste
collection
· funding for
waste educational and awareness initiatives
· contribute
towards the costs of the enforcement team, flytipping, litter and
dog fouling
· further
development of waste management options including Phase 1 and 2 of
the Waste Resource Park.
An under spend of circa £24k. from the
previous year’s grant had been used to purchase reusable garden
waste bags and to contribute towards the green waste collection
service.
For 2007/08 it was proposed to use the Grant
to promote and develop further the kerbside collection service, to
monitor participation in that scheme and to prepare for changes to
the waste management service. Specifically, it was proposed
that Grant expenditure be broken down as follows:
· contribution
towards funding existing domestic kerbside recycling in the Vale -
£1,039,928
· green waste
collection - £105,494
· waste
educational and awareness initiatives - £123,000
· contribution
towards the costs of the enforcement team covering flytipping,
litter and dog fouling - £50,000
· further
development of waste management options including Phase 1 and 2 of
the Waste Resource Park - £41,000.
It was noted that it was anticipated that the
indicative Grant of £1,359,422 for both 2008/09 and 2009/10 would
be allocated as above although that would obviously be dependant on
the Cabinet decision regarding changes to the waste management
service.
RECOMMENDED -
(1) T H A T the Grant expenditure
for 2006/07 be noted.
(2) T H A T Cabinet be requested to
endorse the Grant expenditure allocated in line with the amounts
for 2007/08 and indicative amount from WAG for 2008/09 and 2009/10
as follows and that further reports be submitted to this Committee
in due course:
- contribution
towards funding of the existing domestic kerbside recycling in the
Vale (alternate weekly Wk1 paper, glass and cans, Wk 2 plastic and
cardboard) to 100% of properties: £1,039,928;
- green waste
collection £105,494;
- funding for
Waste Educational and Awareness Initiatives: £123,000;
- contribute
towards the cost of the enforcement team covering flytipping,
litter and dog fouling: £50,000;
- further
development of waste management options including Phase 1 and 2 of
the Waste Resource Park: £41,000.
Reasons for recommendations
(1) To ensure Committee is suitably
informed.
(2) To utilise the Grant to develop
the kerbside collection service further and to monitor
participation in the scheme; to prepare for any required
changes to the collection service; to be kept aware of any
new developments.
133 REVENUE AND
CAPITAL MONITORING: 1ST APRIL 2007 -
31ST MAY, 2007 (DEER) -
The projected outturn for the 2007/08 Revenue
Budget was for a balanced budget although it was noted that it was
extremely early in the financial year and that the budget assumed
that the required £1.1m. efficiency savings would be met.
Details pertaining to the Capital Programme were appended to the
report. It was noted that a Road Maintenance Grant of £582k.
had been awarded to the Council; the money would be used to
resurface the highway network and Cabinet had been requested to
increase the Capital Programme accordingly. In response to a
question relating to safety concerns at and the completion date for
Barry Central Station, a written reply would be sent. The
current position as regards the Merrie Harrier Gyratory system was
outlined and confirmation given that the Committee would be kept
informed of progress.
RECOMMENDED - T H AT the position with regards
to 2007/08 revenue and capital monitoring be noted.
Reason for recommendation
That Members are aware of the position
with regard to the 2007/08 revenue and capital monitoring relevant
to this Committee.
(Note: Councillor R.F. Curtis spoke on the
above matter with the consent of the Committee.)
134 TOURISM STRATEGY
(DEER) -
The third draft of the Council’s Tourism
Strategy had been circulated under separate cover prior to the
meeting and an addendum to the strategy (previously omitted in
error) was tabled. The document was commended and officers
involved in its production thanked for their efforts. It was
noted that since the document had been prepared one member of staff
within the Tourism Team had left, and that the Council had
forwarded comments on the Wales Coastal Tourism Strategy to the
WAG.
It was noted too that there were various
resource implications associated with the Tourism Strategy,
particularly in terms of the development of the service and the
proposed service to tourists in the future. The draft revised
WAG Technical Advice Note 13 “Tourism” section referred to local
authorities undertaking an assessment of the level and nature of
the local tourism sector - a matter which had significant
resource implications. Where resourcing proved to be a major
priority of the implementation of the Strategy, further reports
would be brought to this Committee and suitable partnerships
explored. It was recognised that the aims of the Strategy
were ambitious and that funding for tourism related initiatives was
not awarded a high propriety given the other pressures on the
Council’s budget. Subsequent discussion included the lack of
accommodation in Barry and Penarth (although the increase in self
catering accommodation in the rural Vale was welcomed), the
scarcity of public toilets and the desirability of improved signage
at appropriate locations.
RECOMMENDED -
(1) T H A T Cabinet be
recommended to endorse the draft Tourism Strategy.
(2) T H A T a
consultation event be held with Members and stakeholders, including
representatives of Chambers of Trade and Town / Community
Councils.
(3) T H A T the report
be referred to the Community Liaison Committee as part of the
consultation process.
(4) T H A T Cabinet be
requested to have regard to allocating resources to fulfil the
promise of the strategy.
Reasons for recommendations
(1) To demonstrate the
Council’s commitment to the development of its Tourism
Services.
(2) To obtain a wide
range of views on the Council’s services.
(3) As part of the
consultation process.
(4) To fulfil the
promise of the strategy.
(Note: Councillor R.F. Curtis spoke on the
above with the consent of the Committee.)
135 HIGHWAY SAFETY
CONCERNS, FFORDD Y MILENIWM, BARRY WATERFRONT (DEER) -
The report referred to highway safety concerns
on Ffordd y Mileniwm and proposed mitigation measures. It was
noted that the current Highways Agency Standard for safety
audits (HD19/03) required that a safety audit be undertaken 12
months and 36 months after the opening of a scheme. Two
independent safety audits had, therefore, been commissioned on the
two sections of Ffordd y Mileniwm. The first had been
undertaken by Arup in November 2001 for the section from Cardiff
Road to the Hood Road railway overbridge and the second undertaken
by Morgan Tucker Associates in May 2004 for the section from the
Dock Office to Gladstone Bridge. The latter safety audit was
specific to the content of the report and was appended
thereto. Whilst all issues raised in the safety audit reports
had to be considered by the Highway Authority and proposals made to
mitigate any problems identified, some measures were deemed to be
“essential” while others were merely “desirable”. Only those
measures that were considered to be “essential” were referred to in
the report.
The Safety Audit dated 2004 stated that it was
“essential” that the following three issues were addressed as a
matter of urgency, particularly for the three roundabouts between
the Dock Office and Gladstone Bridge:
· planting and
landscaping on the centre of roundabouts - the high level of
planting and the provision of large boulders in the centre of
roundabouts being considered inappropriate
· poor visibility
for pedestrians and cyclists crossing adjacent to the
roundabouts - that visibility being severely restricted due
to the excessive amount of planting
· poor visibility
for motorists, the audit recommending that the boulders and “heavy”
landscaping should be removed from the centre of the roundabouts as
soon as possible.
The costs of the removal of the boulders and
the heavy landscaping from the three roundabouts referred to above
together with the provision of the appropriate visibility as
required by the Highways Agency Directives, together with
funding for the scheme preparation and project management amounted
to £38k.
The Safety Audit report also indicated that
there was a lack of formal pedestrian crossing facilities along the
length of Ffordd y Mileniwm. It was recommended, therefore,
that either zebra or pelican crossing facilities should be placed
at locations A and B as shown on the drawing appended to the
report. It had to be noted, however, that those crossing
facilities could not be provided until forward visibility at the
roundabouts had been improved. Investigations had also taken
place on the need for a pelican crossing on the link road to
Gladstone Bridge as shown at location C on the drawing appended to
the report. It was noted that although designs and costings
for the three pedestrian facilities had not been finalised, the
outturn costs were likely to be approximately £95k.
The report referred to the fact that the
recently introduced provisions of the police’s Road Deaths
Investigation Manual could be implemented if, having recognised
that a hazard existed, no action was taken to remedy the same. It
was accepted that the Waterfront development had progressed
considerably in the area of Ffordd y Mileniwm under consideration,
but concerns were expressed at the proposal to remove the boulders
and “heavy” landscaping from the roundabouts. Reference was
made to the attractiveness of those roundabouts which contributed
to the character of the area, to the fact that improved visibility
could result in increased vehicular speed, and to the lack of
accident data. Having regard to the above, it was
RECOMMENDED -
(1) T H A T the findings presented
in the Safety Audit report appended to the report be noted.
(2) T H A T further consideration
be given to retaining the character of the roundabouts and the
retention of the signs, and that a further report on options to
improve visibility be submitted to this Committee.
(3) T H A T additional funds be
sought in due course from a future Asset Renewal Budget or the
Capital Programme to undertake the further “essential” works to
improve the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and motorists and to
provide the three pedestrian crossings identified.
(4) T H A T the report be referred
to Cabinet for decision.
Reasons for recommendations
(1) To keep members informed.
(2) To retain the character of the
area where possible whilst improving road safety.
(3) In the interests of road
safety.
(4) To clarify the Council’s
position.
(Note: Councillor R.F. Curtis spoke on the
above matter with the consent of the Committee.)
136 BANNERS ON BRIDGES
(DEER) -
Since local government reorganisation in 1996,
this Council had permitted the display of banners on bridges and,
over 9 years, an average of 36 applications had been received
annually. A charge of £110 was made per location per
application, the sum covering officer time in managing the process
and attending to incidents of banners becoming detached.
Cabinet had, in March 2007, during its deliberations regarding a
report on “Visible Services: Proposed Fees and Charges” asked for a
further report on the feasibility of Council erecting and
dismantling banners on bridges (and making a charge for this
service).
The report then focused on the practice of
allowing banners to be displayed from bridges from a view of
highway safety. Locally, officers within the Engineering
Design and Procurement Division had concerns in that any
distraction to the driver of a vehicle could contribute to a road
traffic collision and, should a banner become detached, then there
was a chance it would fall into the highway below the bridge and
could, once again, contribute to a road traffic collision.
All Welsh unitary authorities had previously been approached to
establish whether or not they permitted banners to be displayed on
their bridges and, of the 8 responses received, only 1 authority
allowed such activities. It was further noted that the WAG,
which had responsibility for bridges on the trunk road and motorway
network in Wales, did not permit the display of banners and that,
in addition, the County Surveyors’ Society (CSS) had published a
“Protocol for Highway Managers and Bridge Owners” which strongly
advised against the practice of permitting banners to be attached
to bridges. Attention was also drawn to the fact that the
Police now tended to treat all road deaths as unlawful killings
until the contrary was proven and, if the Police had reason to
believe that any lack of action or foresight on the part of
the Council could have contributed to that death, staff would be
interviewed as if they had a criminal case to answer.
Consideration was, therefore, necessary as to whether the promotion
of the scale of the fees for the provision of banners on the
Council’s bridges or to suggest providing such a service by the
Council would be against the best practice advice from the CSS and
the policy adopted by most other bridge managers.
Debate then ensued on the value of such
banners advertising, for example, local events in attracting
visitors into the Vale and informing the public in general of
matters which might otherwise have escaped their attention.
Small scale organisations frequently advertised by such means and
any prohibition could affect their economic viability. In
response to a question relating to the potential distraction caused
by flowers, gifts, etc. being placed on the roadside where an
accident had occurred, Members were notified that a report on
measures to address the matter could be made to a future
meeting.
Following a full exchange of views, it was
RECOMMENDED - T H A T Cabinet be urged to
support the termination of the practice of permitting the display
of banners on bridges.
Reason for recommendation
On the grounds of highway safety.
137 VALE OF GLAMORGAN
LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (LDP) - SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL DRAFT
SCOPING REPORT - RESULTS OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION (DEER) -
Cabinet had, on 6th June, 2007
considered the above report, approving the proposed amendments to
the Sustainability Appraisal (S.A.) Draft Scoping Report as
detailed in the appendix to the report and authorising the revised
Sustainability Appraisal to be placed in relevant Council Offices
and Libraries and on the Council’s website for public
information. Cabinet had also referred the same to this
Committee and the Planning Committee for consideration.
It was noted that the Council had employed
specialist consultants Hyder Consulting to assist and provide
expert assistance in respect of the S.A.
22 comments had been received during the five week
consultation period from a range of individuals and agencies
including comment from the Countryside Council for Wales and the
Environment Agency; comments from two individuals had also been
received after the consultation deadline.
RECOMMENDED - T H A T the proposed amendments
to the S.A. Draft Scoping Report resulting from the formal public
consultation exercise be approved and the revised S.A. placed at
relevant Council Offices and Libraries and on the Council’s website
for public information.
Reason for recommendation
To inform members of the comments made in
respect of the draft Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report and
the Council’s response to them and to adopt the Scoping Report
formally, and to enable stakeholders to obtain copies of the
document in order to make further comments.
138 VALE OF GLAMORGAN
LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (LDP) - CANDIDATE SITE REGISTER AND
ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY (DEER) -
Cabinet had, earlier on 20th June,
2007 considered the above and had sought the views of this and the
Planning Committee. Cabinet had noted the availability of the
initial Candidate Site Register and endorsed it for public release,
had endorsed the methodology and criteria for the future assessment
of candidate sites, and had requested a further report on the
results of the candidate site assessment process in due course.
By way of background, it was explained that a
key element in developing the Vale of Glamorgan LDP was the
identification of suitable sites for a variety of uses and, between
4th December, 2006 and 31st January, 2007,
the Council had formally invited interested parties, landowners,
developers, agents and Council departments to submit candidate
sites. Candidate site submissions had been received for a
variety of uses including employment, community, recreation,
residential, retailing, tourism, utilities and waste
management. In accepting candidate site submissions,
local authorities were required to produce a site register which
could be updated as the LDP progressed. The next step in the
candidate site process was for officers to determine the relative
suitability of individual sites for future development. The
proposed methodology required all candidate sites to be subject to
the assessment process detailed in the report which incorporated
both a filtering of sites and criteria based assessments. It
was considered that the proposed methodology would provide a robust
and transparent process for assessing the suitability, availability
and deliverability of land for particular uses. The timetable
for the production of the LDP indicated that the Council would
develop the Preferred Strategy for public consultation during July
and August 2007. The Preferred Strategy would be subjected to
a full appraisal against the 15 Sustainability Objectives of the SA
Framework and, once approved, the Strategy would inform the choice
and range of land allocations to deliver the aims and strategies of
the LDP with the most suitable sites being taken forward into the
Deposit Draft LDP.
It was noted that the submission of sites for
consideration should not be interpreted as a commitment that such
sites would be taken forward into the LDP.
RECOMMENDED - T H A T the resolutions of the
Cabinet as indicated above and contained in Minute No. C3073 be
endorsed.
Reason for recommendation
To respond to Cabinet in respect of the
consultation.
139 TECHNICAL ADVICE
NOTE (TAN) 18: TRANSPORT (DEER) -
The Planning Committee had, on 24th
May, 2007 considered the above report (Minute No. 56).
Attention was drawn to the fact that TAN18
reflected WAG’s aim of broadening the range and choice of transport
available and securing accessibility in a manner that supported
sustainable development by encouraging an integrated transport
system that was safe, efficient, clean and fair. The TAN
contained advice on:
· integration
between different types of transport;
· integration of
transport policy with policies for the environment, education,
social justice, health, economic development and wealth
creation;
· integration
between Land Use Planning and Transport, promoting, for example,
resource and travel efficient settlement patterns; ensuring the
promotion of new development to minimise the need to travel or
where there was good access to a range of public transport;
· location of
development, referring, for example, to the need to focus on
accessibility to services and facilities rather than mobility with
developers being able to demonstrate good accessibility in respect
of new development in terms of access to services and accessibility
by a range of transport modes both within and beyond the
development;
· parking, a
co-ordinated approach to parking provision at both regional and
local levels being advocated with Regional Parking Frameworks being
developed as part of the Regional Transport Plan;
· design of
development with access statements being required to accompany all
planning applications (except householder and change of use
proposals) and, in designing and planning new development,
clarification between roads (highways) and streets (where the
“place function” would take precedence over the “movement
function”);
· walking and
cycling;
· public
transport;
· planning for
transport infrastructure.
RECOMMENDED - T H A T the report be
referred to the aforementioned Task and Finish Group for
consideration and to help inform the scoping exercise at its first
meeting.
Reason for recommendation
The report provides a context for the work of
the Task and Finish Group.