To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillors Bowden, Luxton, Walters & Reynolds. They were substituted by Councillors Sharpe, Muir, Clark & Del Campo respectively.

Councillor Hunt asked why two of the three Councillors who called in the decision were not present. Oran Norris-Browne, Democratic Services Officer said that the invite was of course extended to both Councillors Hill and Price, however both were unavailable. He said that Councillor Singh who was the third Councillor who called it in, was present and therefore the call-in would proceed. The Chairman invited Emma Duncan, Monitoring Officer to clarify this. She confirmed that Councillor Singh was able to represent his own views still on the call-in.

Councillor Davey then said that Councillor Bowden chose the date of the meeting and was unavailable and therefore asked panel members to not discuss about people not attending. Oran Norris-Browne clarified that Councillor Bowden as Chairman had not set the date of the meeting as it was a call-in and as per the constitution a meeting had to be called within 10 working days of receipt of the call-in.

Councillor Singh said that a 5pm start for the meeting was not ideal for those who worked full-time. The Chairman acknowledged this and said that it had already been discussed prior to the meeting and would be considered moving forward.

To receive any declarations of interest.

Councillor SIngh declared a personal interest as he owned a property within the area that was affected by the agenda item.

Councillor Hunt declared that she too owned a property within the town centre.

Councillor Clark also declared that they owned property within the town centre.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 14 November 2022 as a true and accurate record.

Parish Councillor Pat McDonald, Co-Optee, requested that within the voting tables of the minutes, the co-optees reason for not voting be changed from ‘no vote recorded’. He said that this came across badly, whereas in reality, they were not eligible to vote.

Oran Norris-Browne agreed with this and stated that this was the default of the software that was used, however he would amend the minutes and also change it going forward also.

AGREED UNANIMOUSLY: That the minutes of the meeting held 14 November 2022 were a true and accurate record.

1)    After the Chair opens the meeting the Members who asked for the decision to be called in will be asked to explain their reasons for the request and what they feel should be reviewed;

2)    On matters of particular relevance to a particular ward, ward division Members who are not signatories to a call-in have the opportunity to make comments on the call-in at the meeting, such speeches not to exceed five minutes each. Ward Members will take no further part in the discussion or vote. Ward Members must register their request to speak by contacting Democratic Services by 12 noon on the day prior to the relevant hearing;

3)    The relevant Cabinet Member for the portfolio (or holders if more than one is relevant) will then be invited to make any comments;

4)    The relevant Executive Director or his representative will advise the Panel on the background and context of the decision and its importance to achieving Service priorities;

5)    Panel Members will ask questions of Members and officers in attendance;

6)    The Cabinet Member(s) will be invited to make any final comments on the matter;

7)    The Panel votes on a decision.

Oran Norris-Browne read out the procedure for the call-in for transparency and clarity for panel members and the public who were watching.

Councillor Singh as the member who called in the decision read out the reasons that were submitted by himself, Councillor Price and Councillor Hill as to why they were calling in the decision. This was present within paragraph 1 of the report.

Councillor Singh outlined three key issues for the call-in. These were viability, infrastructure delivery and strategic placemaking. On viability, costs, demand, inflation, and energy prices were all increasing. The viability update report had been published after the consultation was complete. He continued by saying that the reached conclusion was that the development of AL13 should still be delivered in a way that met all requirements of the BLP and SPD. He also noted the deterioration of the market which could lead to added disruption for residents.

In terms of the infrastructure delivery, he noted that AL13 would have a funding shortfall for infrastructure and mitigation of £47.4 million. Only £10.6 million would come as a contribution from the Triangle site. He also expressed concern over the reports that housing on the golf course site would not be completed until 2041 and what impact this would have on infrastructure funding. He was also concerned about the approach in the SPD to how much each developer would have to pay and the risk to future developments if they did not make up the shortfall. More borrowing would need to occur for the Council up to £200 million, an increase from £50 million.

Councillor Singh reminded the panel that the SPD was funded by the developers and therefore it was very conceivable that the amount of Section 106 that must be paid, would work to the advantage of the developers and not necessarily the residents.

On his final point, Councillor Singh said that he wanted to place on record that he was very concerned about the failure to provide an area-wide master plan and that this undermined the whole point of placemaking. Given the historic examples of a lack of master planning, such as a playground in St Marys ward, there are many issues and a lack of maintenance due to the lack of a plan being in place by the Council. He also expressed concern about the development on the Magnet site and the lack of master planning as well as issues with the town centre and a lack of master planning.

Councillor Singh said that there was a policy shortfall in the SPD which had left a loophole for developers to maximise their GDV and have no cohesive plan around the whole site. Councillor Singh wished for the loophole to be fixed, so that the Council could move forward with a decent scheme. 

Councillor Singh was also concerned about the lack of cohesion between plots within the development. He did not wish for plots to be developed and some to be left empty in the site. Without  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.