Agenda and minutes

The Chair, welcomed County Councillor Michael Devaney, who was attending his first meeting as a member of the Group.

The Head of Planning advised the Group about a scrutiny review that had been undertaken between the Department of Transport, the Department for Communities and Local Authorities regarding adoptions on a national scale.

Problems associated with the status and safety of un-adopted new streets had been raised by a number of MP’s in the Commons.

Concerns included:

·         A lack of knowledge or understanding by some parties of the existing complex and extensive system and how it is intended to work.

·         Poor advice to those purchasing properties in explaining the processes, roles, responsibilities and liabilities that they and others have.

·         Inconsistent processes and procedures used by Local Highway Authorities, (LHAs).

·         Such processes can vary considerably across the Country with further differences between Unitary and Two Tier authorities.

In response to the House of Commons debates, the Department for Transport, (DfT) and Department for Communities and Local Government, (DCLG) met with Local Highway and Planning Authorities to discuss options and opportunities to improve the existing systems associated with the adoption of new streets in developments and any legislative amendments that would assist. The resultant Policy and Legislation Review Working Party commissioned a sub group of LHAs, led by Northamptonshire County Council, to consider the matter is greater detail and prepare a paper for further discussion.

Chris Bond, the Development Control and Road Adoptions Manager from Northamptonshire County Council had indicated that he would be willing to attend one of the Groups meeting to talk about their work and findings in relation to adoption issues.

RESOLVED – That Chris Bond be invited to a future meeting of the Group.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Roy Lees and Dave Rogerson.

To confirm the minutes of the Overview and Scrutiny Task Group – Adoption of Housing Estates meeting held on 19 September 2012 (enclosed)

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the Overview and Scrutiny Task Group – Adoption of Estates meeting held on 19 September 2012 be confirmed as a correct record for signing by the Chair.

Members are reminded of their responsibility to declare any pecuniary interest in respect of matters contained in this agenda.

If you have a pecuniary interest you must withdraw from the meeting. Normally you should leave the room before the business starts to be discussed. You do, however, have the same right to speak as a member of the public and may remain in the room to enable you to exercise that right and then leave immediately. In either case you must not seek to improperly influence a decision on the matter.

Councillor Julia Berry – resident on Kittiwake, Chorley

The completed scoping document is enclosed for Members information.

This document was approved by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 1 October 2012.

The completed scoping document was received by Members for information. Subsequent to the last meeting, the scoping of the review had been drafted in line with the Group’s recommendations and had since been approved by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 3 October 2012.

The Chair also raised with the Group, arrangements for involving the public within the review. A representative from each of the chosen case study estates could be invited to talk to the Group about adoption issues on their estates and to establish if the issues that had been identified by the officers and Members were a true reflection of those that were faced by residents.

The Chair requested that Members of the Group submit suitable representatives from each of the four developments to Democratic Services so that the necessary arrangements could be put into place. Ward Councillors could also be approached to identify issues.

The Director of People and Places also suggested that the Council may be able to collate some information in relation to the issues on each of the developments from calls logged at the Councils Contact Centre.

It was important to manage public expectations about the impact of the review in making the necessary improvements to the process. The key was increasing public understanding and awareness of potential issues, as well as assisting them to better manage some of the issues themselves, for example, when purchasing a home on a new estate.

RESOLVED 

1.     That the scoping of the review be noted.

2.     That Members identify suitable representatives from each of the four housing estates.

At the last meeting the Group identified a mix of small and large existing un-adopted housing estates across the Borough that could be used as case studies from which to identify the concerns and issues that existed.

The estates chosen were:

Gillibrand, Chorley (information enclosed)

Kittiwake, Heapey (information enclosed)

Buckshaw, Buckshaw Village (information to follow)

Fairview Farm, Adlington (information enclosed)

A pack of relevant information has been collated for each housing estate that includes:

·         The planning background

·         Planning applications

·         Section 106 Agreements

·         Highways Information

·         Unites Utilities information

·         Any issues arising

·         Public Open Spaces and Leisure facilities (information to follow)

·         Plans

·         Planning permissions

At the last meeting, the Group had identified a mix of small and large existing unadopted housing estates across the Borough that could be used as case studies from which to identify the concerns and issues that existed.

The estates chosen were:

Kittiwake, Heapey

Fairview Farm, Adlington

Gillibrand Street, Chorley

Buckshaw, Buckshaw Village

A pack of relevant information had been collated for each housing estate that included information on:

·         The planning background

·         Various planning applications

·         Section 106 Agreements

·         Section 38 and 278 Agreements

·         Highways information

·         United Utilities information

·         Any issues that had arisen

·         Public Open Spaces and Leisure facilities

·         Site plans

·         Planning permissions that had been granted

Members were advised that the background information that had been provided for this meeting was to be used as a reference document throughout the review and should be retained and brought to the future meetings of the Group.

The Head of Planning took Members through the information contained within each of the packs.

Members discussed the following issues that arose whilst reviewing the information that was presented:

1.  Changes in property developer

The Group were advised that issues often became more complicated when developers went bankrupt and were taken over by other companies. The new developers often had differing ideas about what they want to build and amended applications were submitted, which in turn generated amended Section 38 and 106 documents and planning permissions. This was a common occurrence and slowed the process down quite considerably.

In the case of the Fairview development the Group were informed that Westbury Homes (NW) Ltd had financial difficulties in the early 2000’s and its property portfolio was taken over by Persimmon Homes. This led to lengthy negotiations to ensure the release to the Council of the commuted sums due under the Section 106 Agreement that were finally resolved in 2009.

The original Section 106 Agreement was dated 12 November 1999 with four further supplemental agreements on 22 August 2001, 7 September 2001, 5 December 2001 and 18 December 2009.

Members noted that the commuted sums of £377,335 that was allocated in the original Section 106 for the future maintenance of the Community Centre and £78,000 for maintenance of public open space was actually only received from the developer in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.